|
Science communication generally refers to public communication presenting science-related topics to non-experts. This often involves professional scientists (called "outreach" or "popularization"), but has also evolved into a professional field in its own right. It includes science exhibitions, journalism, policy or media production. Science communication can aim to generate support for scientific research or study, or to inform decision making, including political and ethical thinking. There is increasing emphasis on explaining methods rather than simply findings of science. This may be especially critical in addressing scientific misinformation, which spreads easily because it is not subject to the constraints of scientific method.〔〔〔〔 Science communicators can use entertainment and persuasion including humour Science communication can also simply describe communication between scientists (for instance through scientific journals), as well as between non-scientists. ==Motivations== Partly due to a market for professional training, science communication is also an academic discipline. Journals include ''Public Understanding of Science'' and ''Science Communication''. Researchers in this field are often linked to Science and Technology Studies, but may also come from history of science, mainstream media studies, psychology or sociology. As a reflection of growth in this field, academic departments, such as the ''Department of Life Sciences Communication'' at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, have been established to focus on applied and theoretical communication issues. Agricultural communication is considered a subset of science communication from an academic and professional standpoint relating to agriculture-related information among agricultural and non-agricultural stakeholders. Health communication is a related discipline. Writing in 1987, Geoffery Thomas and John Durant advocated various reasons to increase public understanding of science, or scientific literacy. If the public enjoyed science more, they suggested there would presumably be more funding, progressive regulation, and trained scientists. More trained engineers and scientists could allow a nation to be more competitive economically.〔As summarised in Gregory, Jane & Steve Miller (1998) Science in Public: communication, culture and credibility (New York: Plenum), 11-17.〕 Science can also benefit individuals. Science can simply have aesthetic appeal (e.g. popular science or science fiction). Living in an increasingly technological society, background scientific knowledge can help to negotiate it. The science of happiness is an example of a field whose research can have direct and obvious implications for individuals.〔 Governments and societies might also benefit from more scientific literacy, since an informed electorate promotes a more democratic society.〔 Moreover, science can inform moral decision making (e.g. answering questions about whether animals can feel pain, how human activity influences climate, or even a science of morality). Bernard Cohen points out potential pitfalls in improving scientific literacy. He explains first that we must avoid 'scientific idolatry'. In other words, science education must allow the public to respect science without worshiping it, or expecting infallibility. Ultimately scientists are humans, and neither perfectly altruistic, nor competent. Science communicators must also appreciate the distinction between understanding science, and possessing a transferable skill of scientific thinking. Indeed, even trained scientists do not always manage to transfer the skill to other areas of their life. Cohen is critical of what has been called 'Scientism' – the claim that science is the best or only way to solve all problems. He also criticizes the teaching of 'miscellaneous information' and doubts that much of will ever be of any use, (e.g. the distance in light years from the earth to various stars, or the names of minerals). Much of scientific knowledge, particularly if it is not the subject public debate and policy revision, may never really translate to practical changes for the lives of the learners.〔 Many criticisms of academic research in public understanding of science come from scholars in Science and Technology Studies. For example, Steven Hilgartner (1990)〔Hilgartner, Stephen (1990) ‘The Dominant View of Popularization: Conceptual Problems, Political Uses, Social Studies of Science, vol. 20(3): 519-539.〕 argues that what he calls 'the dominant view' of science popularization tends to imply a tight boundary around those who can articulate true, reliable knowledge. By defining a deficient public as recipients of knowledge, the scientists get to contrast their own identity as experts. The process of popularisation is a form of boundary work. Understood in this way, science communication may explicitly exist to connect scientists with the rest of society, but its very existence only acts to emphasise it: as if the scientific community only invited the public to play in order to reinforce its most powerful boundary (according to work by Massimiano Bucchi or Brian Wynne).〔Massimiano Bucchi (1998) Science and the Media (London & New York: Routledge).〕〔Wynne, Brian (1992) ‘Misunderstood misunderstanding: Social identities and public uptake of science’, ''Public Understanding of Science'', vol. 1 (3): 281-304. See also Irwin, Alan & Wynne, Brian (eds) (1996) ''Misunderstanding Science'' (Cambridge & New York: Cambridge University Press).〕 Biologist Randy Olson adds that anti-science groups can often be so motivated, and so well funded, that the impartiality of science organizations in politics can lead to crises of public understanding of science. He cites examples of denialism (for intsance of global warming) to support this worry.〔(October 23, 2009.) ("Randy Olson - Don’t Be Such a Scientist." ) (Includes podcast). (Pointofinquiry.org ). Accessed May 2012.〕 Journalist Robert Krulwich likewise argues that the stories scientists tell are invariably competing with the efforts of people like Adnan Oktar. Krulwich explains that attractive, easy to read, and cheap creationist textbooks were sold by the thousands to schools in Turkey (despite their strong secular tradition) due to the efforts of Oktar.〔Miller, Lulu (July 29, 2008).("Tell Me a Story." ) (Includes podcast). (Radiolab.org ). Accessed May 2012.〕 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「science communication」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|