As for the public, they rarely had the chance to gain any appreciable knowledge of the advances occurring in the scientific realm. ![]() Discussions of scientific research were relegated to the pages of academic journals, compendia, and textbooks. Researchers shared evidence without a care for translation. Science communication in the public realm was no longer beneficial to scientists, and they abandoned the effort ( 13). The action of the Church had a significant impact on the scientific community. This was epitomized with the 1633 trial and conviction of Galileo Galilei ( 12). The book eventually was banned, and any attempt to revive Copernicus’ work was met harshly. Unfortunately, the results conflicted with the beliefs of society’s greatest influence at the time, the Catholic Church. He published his findings in the book, De revolutionibus Orbium Coe lestium (On the Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres) in 1543 ( 11) to awaken the public to the new reality. This inevitably led to a rift between science and the Church, in 1514, when Copernicus discovered the Earth was not the center of the universe.īased on his celestial observations, Copernicus concluded the Earth revolved around the sun, not the other way around. Communicators needed to focus on accuracy over reception and values. As centuries went by, systematic methods were utilized to test the natural world and evidence became more detailed. Each element first will be explained based on its historical context suggestions will then be made on how to apply each one to improve the chances of meeting the three objectives of accuracy, reception, and alignment with values.įor centuries, conveying evidence in tune with social values was effective, as science was mainly theoretical and philosophical in nature. Known as the 5Es, this approach incorporates five elements: education, enrichment, engagement, entertainment, and empathy. This article serves to explore pertinent moments in science communication history and use them as a guide to support a new strategy for achieving the three objectives. ![]() ![]() This information can be distilled in order to synthesize new paths forward. Looking at the stories of the past offers not only a recollection of these activities but also a list of advantages and pitfalls associated with various science communication approaches. Science communication is a relatively young branch of research ( 7), yet the activity of sharing science with the public spans back millennia. This necessity for two-way dialogue can leave those unfamiliar with public interaction at a significant disadvantage and prone to issues such as bias ( 6). The other two present a greater challenge, as they require a relationship between the communicator and the public ( 4). The information must align with current social values.Īchieving the first goal should be straightforward for most science communicators as it utilizes a one-directional approach common to dissemination of knowledge in the academic realm.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |