Should scientists pledge their commitment to science communication?

In December 2010, the International Council for Science (ICSU) published guidelines on science communication. Though useful, the guidelines will not be surprising for regular readers of this bulletin. There is a growing consensus that scientists have a responsibility to converse with the public about their work, making it accessible and working with journalists to improve the quality and quantity of science reporting.

However, more interesting is a suggestion by The Director of the Science and Development Network, David Dickson, in a recent blog.

“Newly qualified doctors agree to abide by the Hippocratic Oath, committing to act in the best interests of their patients. It would be going too far to ask newly qualified scientists to make a similar commitment to acting in the best interests of society - this is a notoriously difficult criterion to predict, or even define. And the freedom of science, as well as the freedom of expression of scientists, needs to be respected.

“But some form of commitment to communication by all researchers - such as agreement to work within guidelines based on those drafted by the ICSU committee, backed by an appropriate level of institutional support — would be an important step forward”.

Dickson’s approach is refreshing. Turning theoretical support into embedded action can be a long process and formalising the commitment may be symbolically useful in driving cultural change.

However, it would be even more valuable to take it a step further and ask scientists to commit to listening to, as well as communicating with, the public. Although the final ICSU principle mentions that ‘communication is a two-way process: scientists should not only present their findings, but should also be prepared to engage in relevant debate and discussion’ it feels like a slightly hollow gesture compared with the detailed guidelines set out in relation to science communication.

What would a pledge need to include to really embed two-way dialogue? How could a pledge pin down the principles that should govern scientists when engaging with the public? Furthermore, is listening enough or should scientists commit to acting on public opinion? If so, where should the line be drawn?

To join in the debate on this and other topics, see the Sciencewise-ERC forum.