The principle of all scientists should be:
Not all researchers have to engage in science communication to the same extent – but all scientists should think about it again and again and ask themselves: “Do I want to communicate? And if I don’t want to, what are my reasons for not doing so?”
Researchers often want to communicate. But they don’t dare because it’s unknown territory. If someone actually wants to, but is not (yet) able to communicate, then there are training courses, tools and further training opportunities that provide the tools to put theory into practice.
But when someone says, “My scientific career depends on me publishing my science and writing funding applications – I don’t have time to run a Twitter channel or blog at the same time.” Then that’s fine. At least this person has thought about it. And maybe at some point they will be open for tips on how to create pieces of science communication in a short period of time.
Currently, it is still the unspoken common sense in science that it is standard not to communicate. Researchers who actively communicate have to justify their actions to the scientific community. We need a cultural shift so that researchers who do not communicate are the ones that are asked to explain themselves.
So whether and how one conducts science communication should be a conscious decision of the researchers. But we wouldn’t be passionate science communicators if we didn’t have a few reasons for WissKomm:
Reason 1: Promote your own research
Communicating one’s own research right from the start, i.e. with the idea for a research project, brings advantages. That’s because communicating also means making yourself visible; and whoever is visible offers points of contact, not only for colleagues. Through good networking, it is possible, for example, to find collaborators, acquire study participants or convince supporters of the project.
An example from the Silbersalzfestival 2018, a conversation with Dr. Andreina Kero from Turku University in Finland: for a study, she and her team are looking for people who had cancer during their childhood. The aim of the study is to find out how strongly therapy (chemotherapy, radiological treatment) influences physical health after 20/30 years. For that the study needs a large gene cohort. The researchers, however, have difficulties in identifying test subjects using the usual methods,
which are university-wide newsletters and postings. Our suggestion: making yourself visible online through science communication, since the number of potential test subjects is huge online. At the same time, the issue at stake requires little persuasion for commitment as cancer survivors get the chance to help others survive, too. With early, constant and good science communication, researchers could build a network in the community and find more test subjects.
Vanity and competitive thinking should be ignored in one’s own science communication. In the sense of Open Science, science communication can drive research forward, for example by enabling researchers to discover projects outside their science peer group and to network across borders.
An example from Magdeburg: Two neuroscientists need nano-sensors that are so small that they can be implemented at cell size. However, these are not available on the market because they are too specialized. By chance, in the cafeteria of their own university, they get to know other researchers from materials science who have developed experimental prototypes of such sensors.. Neuroscientists on the one hand, materials researchers on the other. They would never have met at a conference. Now the two neuroscientists still need pipettes that are so small that the sensors can be inserted into the cells. They are also not available on the market. Maybe there is another laboratory that develops such pipettes but has not yet launched them on the market. At the meeting in Magdeburg, we asked the group whether they would like to leave the discovery of the pipettes to chance. The answer, of course, was no, but what can they do? The answer: communication! Because with good science communication online, the researchers could expand their university cafeteria to the whole world, open up complementary interests and move forward together.
Reason 2: Increase your strengths
Basically, everyone has skin in the game when it comes to the ability to share what you actually do. Great communication skills are key – not only in research, but also if you pursue a career in business and have to communicate what you do and how well you do it. For example, if you want to work in the journalistic field or found a start-up, you have to learn how to pitch in order to convince a publisher, the competition jury or potential investors.
Not every researcher considers themself a born communicator: “I don’t like talking in front of the camera”, “It’s hard for me to write texts”, “Speaking in front of an audience makes me nervous” …
These concerns are widespread, but can be addressed through targeted training and practice in a safe environment. After all, much of communication is craftsmanship.
Otherwise, of course, there is always the possibility of switching to another medium. Those who don’t want to write a blog because writing the usual publications is already exhausting could try podcasting!
Reason 3: Foster trust between society and research
Whoever cries loudest or first, is likely being heard. The current debate on vaccination and anti-vaccers shows that it is much harder to refute misrepresentations or criticism when you have not laid the foundations for being heard. If, however, scientists participate in the dialogue from the outset, conspiracy theorists have it tough.
Scientists and society should view themselves as partners and equals. Reservations such as “they are clueless” or “they wouln’t get it anyway” should be broken down. Instead, scientists should aim to work up and present their data and results in such a way that lay people can understand them and partake in a discussion on them.
We challenge researchers to speak up! You are experts in your field. Take part in the discussion and show it. They should not be afraid of shit storms, should not duck and cover. Instead, stand by your work and your opinion. Reclaim the public debate on scientific issues!
This includes confronting other scientists if your own research shows opposing results or speaking transparently on issues like interest-guided research.
Reason 4: Reflect on your work
To communicate also means to reflect your actions permanently. Those who want to go into research, can start early, learning to communicate and reflect for example through seminars or papers.
We campaign for a culture change. We would like to see young researchers given the opportunity to learn early-on in their bachelor and master programs how good science communication works.
Regardless of whether it is for personal development or that of the science project or to improve the relationship between science and society. Bottom line: science communication offers many opportunities. We hope for a culture change that includes no longer asking why you should communicate science but rather explaining why you may not be able to (yet).