I found this a fascinating piece about scientists who confront controversy when dealing with the public (and even colleagues):-
Outreach: Speak up for science
It begins thus:-
The last lines of the article sound a warning for those who refuse to engage constructively, either out of hostility and fear or simply because they have naive attitudes:-
Outreach: Speak up for science
It begins thus:-
David Robert Grimes, a postdoctoral researcher at the University of Oxford, UK, is an adamant defender of science, but the blog post he wrote in August caused quite a stir, even for him. Troubled by an upcoming vote by Dublin City Council on whether to stop fluoridating the city's water supply, in his post he implored councillors to heed evidence that fluoridated water helps to prevent and slow tooth decay. His contention that claims to the contrary are inflammatory, invalid and dishonest prompted critics around the world to call for his resignation, he says.
Grimes's experience may be extreme, but it serves as a reminder that publicly presenting controversial findings or opinions — even if they are factually sound — can leave one open to hostility. When it comes to speaking up, the uncomfortable reality is that sometimes scientists, especially those at trainee and junior levels, face a difficult choice: courting controversy can exact a career toll, but staying mute can lead to harmful policy decisions uninformed by science.
Early-career researchers who want to speak out must learn how best to communicate science and how to respond productively to criticism, experts say. Yet many young researchers engage the public armed with little communications or media training [ref omitted], and when wading into combustible topics such as climate change, evolution and public health, they quickly learn that science often runs counter to strongly held ideology.
Grimes's experience may be extreme, but it serves as a reminder that publicly presenting controversial findings or opinions — even if they are factually sound — can leave one open to hostility. When it comes to speaking up, the uncomfortable reality is that sometimes scientists, especially those at trainee and junior levels, face a difficult choice: courting controversy can exact a career toll, but staying mute can lead to harmful policy decisions uninformed by science.
Early-career researchers who want to speak out must learn how best to communicate science and how to respond productively to criticism, experts say. Yet many young researchers engage the public armed with little communications or media training [ref omitted], and when wading into combustible topics such as climate change, evolution and public health, they quickly learn that science often runs counter to strongly held ideology.
The last lines of the article sound a warning for those who refuse to engage constructively, either out of hostility and fear or simply because they have naive attitudes:-
Ultimately, scientists who speak out create room at the table for evidence, say those who have found their voice. “If we aren't there speaking on the science,” says Shepherd, “people skilled in messaging, such as attorneys and lawyers, will fill the gaps.”
Comment