According to the Declaration on Science and the Use of Scientific Knowledge sponsored by UNESCO in the World Conference on Science in 1999, there are few recommendations that:
- Scientific knowledge should be distributed
- Coordination and cooperation should be existing among governments, society, private or business sectors and scientists.
- Scientists have to be driven by ethical standards
In that context, immersive communication of science to public will give benefit to the groups who are assigned as the resulting beneficiary. Vladimir Semir, Science communication observatory from Pompeu Fabra University in Media for Science Forum 2010 has noted that those groups can be:
- Each Individual who wants to increase the knowledge, the abilities to make decisions, to utilize new applications by science and technology basis.
- General society who gets benefit through public diffusion of knowledge. Dissemination science to this group might generate public investment that can contribute to economic development of the countries.
- The scientific communities: They could be scientists or people who are first to get benefit from greater public awareness on science.
On the one hand, Gregory and Miller in their book Science in the Public: Communication, Culture, and Credibility argued there are various reasons about scientist motives to do Public Communication, such as
- scientific enthusiasm,
- to improve recipients knowledge and abilities,
- to provide information for scientific communities and their sponsors,
- to sharpen or to create democratic process, and
- to impede seclusion of particular sectors in society
Therefore, communicating science might be developed as part of peoples necessaries. The next question is What is the different between science communicator and scientist communicator
Giving my understanding science communicators may play role as people who are concern and familiar in popularizing science. They should understand how to craft a piece of scientific writing, scientific presentation and the art of scientific exhibition as their sole tasks to communicate science. Then, most of science communicators have a connection to media outlets in order to reach wider audiences and potential readers or sponsor. A science communicator has to well-practiced of science journalism, capable enough to transfer information head to head from the scientists to a lay of audience. Doing public lectures about scientific information might grasp public enthusiasm to science to begin with.
On the other hand, the capability science communicator has been limited by capacity of the information which can be explained more by the scientists communicators, scientists who have capability, passion and interest to communicate their research. Let we say, science communicators might do a great job to create public engagement between science and audiences but scientists communicators might provide their niche experiences with depth knowledge about their experiments to offer a holistic point of view. In this sense, one of the benefit scientists communicator existing is it can create immersive and interactive dialogues. Hence, the dialogues can be recognized as a scientists devotion to do public information of research transparency. Thats the reason why scientists are being interviewed by mass media. In some cases, the scientists can be very convincing when doing science discussion with media. They are quite responsive, well-presented, and able to give properly information which can easily to be understood. However, some scientists can feel uncomfortable to personalized their research, less preparation and stumble over their words when do science explanation. The scientists might be an expert in their areas but they can explain properly their expertise for just communication preparedness issues. To some extent, they should divine how science might be interpreted by common people or scientific communities. In this way, they should understand their capability to be scientist communicator or scientific informants.
As I discussed before, honestly science communicators cannot replace scientists position. They might provide broader perspective and different point of view but they cannot well-informing for certain superficial level. The science communicator has a very important role in this by popularizing science, but only the scientist communicator can be a role model to other scientists and show the public that we are human and care about what they have to say. (Vladimir, 2010) As pivotal thing, Let scientists do science, let writers write, let communicator communicate.
Anyway, in order to create great science presentation, it is so momentous collaboration to engage respects, and collaborative projects between three groups named scientists, scientist communicators, and science communicators. For example, there is a model named as science facilitators who are well-trained in science communication. Their sole job is to help scientists by creating an engagement with the public by publishing their experiments, setting up exhibition events, and training the scientists to do well-communication.
Actually, this model may represent the symbiosis mutual-ism relations between those groups. Every group gets a benefit from the other groups. Especially, in the internet era, platform 2.0 can be new avenues for science journalism and open a chance for people to be science journalists either they are science communicator or scientists communicator.
Then, communicating science in many ways not only being perceived as a transmission mode but also as an effective dialogue to underlying Public Understanding of Sciences (PUS) or we can name it as public engagement. Therefore science communication might face several challenges.
- Firstly, how to define their target, what are their reasons to feel interested and to be involved in particular scientific information,
- How to conduct a set of audiences approach, different stakeholders are requires different mode of communication. For example, scientific communities, industries and general public need different stage of communication goals and processes.
- How to anticipate controversial issues which are relevant to scientific basis facts. For example, utilizing of nuclear energy as an energy alternative or baby vaccination might take a lot of pros and cons from wide range audiences. In this case, science communication plays as bridging mode to overcome misinterpretation from both of views.
- How to create media and science-literate, In order to get trustworthy and neutral sources, many parties rely on scientific journals. However, for particular case associated to public issues, most scientists are suggested to become more skilled in the utilizing different media for communicating.
- How science communication can be reported in the popular media. In order to create public engagement, scientists devotion for community and publics right for getting information. Nowadays, a greater demand for transparency of scientific information is getting higher, then science reporting should be well-informed, accurate and may attract public opinions.
Eventually as Sir Francis Darwin said " in science the credit goes to man who convinces the world , not to the man to whom the idea first occurs"