Scientists are increasingly communicating with the public, but this can have the side effect of prioritizing popularity over research. A scientist’s job is to discover new knowledge, train future generations, and contribute to the advancement of science. Instead of requiring communication skills outside of research, the argument is that it is more efficient to let the media or specialized personnel handle public communication and let scientists focus on research.
Nowadays, with the growing interest in science and technology, more and more scientists are communicating with the public. They do this by giving lectures, writing books, appearing on TV, etc. But what if a scientist focuses more on communicating with the public than on his or her research? In fact, there have been cases where scientists have neglected their research in favor of public popularity and funding. This can be a big problem for scientific progress and society.
In this article, I’d like to address the question: should scientists necessarily have the ability to speak in public and write for the public? The primary responsibility of a scientist is to discover new scientific knowledge and to train talented people. However, requiring scientists to possess skills outside of scientific research, such as communication skills, may be an unnecessary burden on both the individual scientist and society. While this may not be true for scientists who already have good communication skills, there are many scientists who do not, and it would be more efficient to have a medium or person who can efficiently communicate research results to the public.
Also, one of the reasons scientists communicate their research to the public is to gain popularity and fame. This is to secure more funding, and in this situation, it is possible for scientists to distort their research if they are too concerned with popularity. For example, in 2005, Dr. Woo-Seok Hwang falsified a paper and gained widespread popularity, only to be exposed as a fraud. This incident led to a poor public perception of stem cell research, spreading distrust of science, and ultimately harming technological progress. By prioritizing public popularity over their own research, scientists have hindered the progress of science and technology.
On the other hand, there are positive effects when scientists have the ability to communicate with the public. As the average education level of the public has risen, so has the level of science and technology, and the public has the intellectual capacity to accept a somewhat higher level of science. This has the advantage of allowing scientists to share their research directions with the public to check and modify them. However, if the direction of research is too heavily influenced by public opinion, there is a risk that it will be biased toward commercial rather than academic research. Since the public tends to be interested in research that has immediate real-world applications, this direction is likely to prioritize commercial research over academic research. This can lead to a skewing of science and technology research toward commercial applications, while natural science research slows to a crawl.
While there has been an increase in investment in the natural sciences in recent years, engineering still dominates the funding stream. Even if natural science funding were to increase significantly, it would not be able to match engineering funding. In fact, a 2006 research report, “A Study on Rational Distribution of Research Funds for Basic Science Development,” and a 2012 essay, “Resistance to Basic Science Investment and the Need to Deflate the Bubble,” pointed out that research funding is skewed in one direction. These perceptions are unlikely to change in the short term, so scientists are likely to focus on research that reflects the public’s needs.
Of course, the ability to communicate with the public can play a positive role in revitalizing marginalized areas of research by highlighting the importance and need for them. However, it all comes back to the argument that the importance of research should be prioritized. The importance and necessity of research should be communicated through its outcomes.
Famous scientists such as Richard Feynman and Stephen Hawking often write popular books or lectures for the general public that are more accessible than their own research papers. While this helps to increase public interest and understanding of science, it doesn’t provide any real research information. While it is positive to make scientific knowledge widely available and familiar to the public, it does not provide the public with practical technical information.
In some cases, there is a disconnect between the public and the advancement of science and technology. For example, dangerous facilities such as nuclear power plants and radioactive waste dumps were allowed to develop because of a lack of communication with the public. If the public had been informed of the dangers of nuclear energy, it would not have developed as it has. While the lack of communication with the public is a mistake, it has led to the development of many technologies and contributed to human life. For example, without nuclear power plants, many people would be inconvenienced by electricity shortages and the environment would be severely damaged. If we want to advance science and technology by keeping the public informed about the risks of technology, we need to consider that small risks can slow down scientific progress.
In conclusion, scientists should focus on their research and their work rather than communicating with the public. Proper communication can have a positive synergistic effect, but if we forget our roles and chase popularity, the future of scientific advancement will be bleak.
