Research into what has traditionally been called ‘the public understanding of science’ has tended to focus on the views of the general public. By contrast, little effort has been made to understand how scientists perceive science communication - even though they are being faced with ever increasing calls to engage with the public, and to increase dialogue on the social and ethical implications of their research.

For this reason, the Wellcome Trust commissioned MORI to undertake a large-scale nationwide survey of scientists to investigate whether scientists consider themselves to be the people most responsible for and best equipped to communicate with the public, what benefits and barriers they see to a greater public understanding of science, and what needs to change for scientists to take a greater role in science communication.

Scientists’ views

MORI interviewed 1540 university scientists funded by a range of sources, including Research Councils, industry and charities. The findings explode the stereotype of the ‘secretive scientist’. Nine out of ten respondents believed that the public needs to know about the social and ethical implications of scientific research. Some 84 per cent of those surveyed agreed that scientists have a duty to communicate their research and its implications to the public, and 69 per cent believe that the main responsibility for engaging the public in debate about the social and ethical impact of scientific research lies with scientists themselves.

More than half had also been involved in some form of public communications activity in the previous year, from speaking to the media and writing about their work, to participating in open days at their institutions or in collaborations with schools.

However, the survey found that there are still significant barriers to communication with the public, including lack of time, support and encouragement, training, funds and incentives. The public’s knowledge of and interest in science was also seen in a fairly negative light, as was the media’s role in reporting science stories.

Scientists stated that the things that would most help to improve communications between the general public and scientists were encouragement and incentives from institutions and funders to spend more time on science communication, training in dealing with the media, and more financial support. A large number also believed that the appointment of specialist science communicators, to talk directly with journalists, the public and the government, would be a positive move.

A survey of this size provides much detail on specific groups of people. For example, it appears that younger scientists are significantly less likely to be involved in science communication activities. Significantly, 28 per cent of scientists whose research team holds a Home Office licence to conduct animal research cited the risks from extremist animal rights groups as a severe disincentive.

Wellcome scientists

Of the scientists interviewed, 148 listed the Wellcome Trust as their primary source of research funding. Although the results from this group differ in some respects from the main sample, there are also demographic differences. Trust-funded scientists were almost entirely biomedical (92 per cent; 54 per cent of the total sample). They tended to be younger, and were more likely to be involved only in research and not teaching. Half hold a Home Office animal research licence, compared with only two in ten of the total sample.

Scientists primarily funded by the Wellcome Trust held similar attitudes about communication: the great majority agreed that the public needs to know about the implications of research, and that scientists have a duty to communicate. They also expressed a desire to spend more time communicating their research with the public. Nevertheless, only a third had participated in an activity designed to communicate with a non-specialist audience, compared with the 50 per cent average.

Trust-funded scientists were the least likely to have spoken to any media about their research in the previous year, to have written for non-specialist audiences or to have talked at schools and colleges. In line with the overall findings, this low level of participation appears to be a combination of factors, primarily a lack of training, confidence and awareness of support available - though the high proportion of animal licence holders could also be a significant factor.

Trust-funded scientists also see a role for funders - 85 per cent felt that funders of scientific research should help scientists communicate with the public, and they were more likely than average to say that funders should have the main responsibility and were better equipped for communicating research implications.

Although the data should be interpreted with caution, the information on Trust-funded scientists offers much food for thought. One possibility is to raise awareness of existing Wellcome Trust good practice, such as the media training available for senior researchers and the Researchers in Residence scheme for PhD students to take part in school placements. Wider consultation with Wellcome Trust scientists will also be vital. A regional exercise is under consideration, which would canvass opinion from a wider constituency than that polled in the survey and discuss with participants the specific measures they would like to see introduced by the Trust.

Nevertheless, scientists have numerous commitments in their basic job description, and it would be foolish to force science communication activities upon those who genuinely do not want to be involved. A rethink of communication training for Trust-funded scientists is underway.

The Wellcome Trust recently underlined its commitment to public engagement by making it one of four key priorities in its five-year plan. This will be taken forward in various ways, as the Trust develops its public engagement and communications strategies.

The ultimate challenge is to turn science organisations into communicating organisations, which means providing scientists with encouragement, training and incentives to engage more regularly and effectively with the non-specialist public. The next generation of scientists will need to be able, as well as willing, communicators.

See also

• Survey of scientists: Details of the MORI commission