I take a different perspective, "Scientists owe it to the public to ensure their results are effectively communicated back to society." This approach requires scientists to take responsibility for dissemination of their work, but it doesn't require them to be the vehicle. (1/2)
Few dispute that some scientists just aren't equipped to communicate with the public and, therefore, shouldn't. There are more effective/trained communicators who can spread the message. And, in terms of strategic comms, the primary investigator may not be the best messenger.
Having said that, scientists can no longer afford to rely on academic publications, especially paywalled journals, or journalists to disseminate their work. The should be required to tell the world about their results and they should be rewarded for getting it done effectively.
Funding agencies have a responsibility to support either the scientist or an alternate vehicle for the dissemination of research results. We've built a communication workforce that consists of highly trained and knowledgeable communicators (many former scientists)...(1/2)
...who can translate the research for the public to understand. These folks are not journalists, so they are not constrained by the business model of the "news" media (which is highly flawed). Instead, they are motivated to improve public understanding of science, which...
...which I find to be a more desirable goal than driving traffic to a "news" website, where editors treat science as a revenue source. The current "news" model leads to sensationalism, hype, amplification of pseudoscience or weakly supported science, and general misinformation.
Some might say that universities have PIOs and public relations staff to support this work. I've found that these groups employ good communicators, but their goal is to promote or "sell" the university, which occasionally conflicts with the goal of the science communicator.
Public relations can also lead to hype and misinformation. Scientists may be wary of working with PR because they fear misrepresentation. This reinforces the importance of science communicators who are primarily focused on public understanding of and appreciation for science.
Important note: There is a problem of "impartiality" that journalists often face. Science communicators (of whom I speak) have a "dog in the fight." They reject false balance and bothsidesism. This is unfortunately not the case at many traditional journalistic operations.
False balance reporting and bothsidesism are part of feeding the news cycle, because the business model is influenced by the need to serve countervailing opinion, even when it is not merited.
However, science communicators who are perceived to embrace partiality to the extent that accuracy suffers would be equally problematic and would not meet the qualifications of a "good communicator."
I’m open to your arguments about how I’m wrong. Look forward to the discussion.
Journalists do an excellent job of reporting the news & some elite science journalists & writers have the freedom to communicate science in brilliant ways, e.g., Carl Zimmer and Ed Yong. But there is so much science that isn't covered because of the limitations of "science news."
For the scientists whose work is not so fortunate to be covered by Virginia Hughes, Deborah Blum, or the other heavy weight journalists, there needs to be a mechanism and an infrastructure to serve them. There also needs to be freedom to operate outside the news "business."
To be clear, I'm not advocating against journalism. Journalism is an important component of the ecosystem. I'm making a case for why scientists need not be required to be the communication vehicle, while they should be responsible for getting their results out to the public.
And they cannot simply rely on journalists because the role of journalism in the ecosystem is not the same as the role of the scientist.
