Scientists at U.S. land-grant universities take different approaches to engaging with the public, from remaining strictly neutral to openly advocating for the public good, but most agree better training is needed, according to a new University of Florida Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences (UF/IFAS) study. When asked if the current political climate means scientists need to engage with the public more or less, 94% of participants said more.
The recently published study in Springer Nature Link, led by researchers at the UF/IFAS Department of Agricultural Education and Communication (AEC), revealed that the scientists surveyed generally fall into three groups: those who prioritize objectivity even at the expense of public impact, those who use their science to promote specific public goods, and those who try to balance both.
“What we found is not a split between ‘good’ science and ‘bad’ science, but different ways scientists think about their responsibilities to the public,” said Sadie Hundemer, assistant professor of agriculture and natural resources communication at AEC. “All of these scientists care deeply about objectivity. They just take different approaches to protect it and control potential biases by limiting or increasing their level of public engagement.”
Even with those differences, most scientists agree that public communication matters, and they need better training and guidance on how to handle it more effectively.
This research explains why scientists don’t always speak with one voice in public concerns. Understanding these differences helps the public, policymakers and journalists better interpret how scientific advice is formed, and why communicating evidence clearly, ethically and transparently is harder than it looks.
“The ethics training most scientists receive focuses on black‑and‑white rules, but doesn’t provide scientists with much guidance on how to navigate the gray areas like public communication and policy discussions,” said Hundemer. “One of the biggest takeaways is that scientists, and particularly land-grant scientists, feel a responsibility to do work that serves the public good, but determining what is good for the public requires the scientist to engage their values which can complicate perceptions of objectivity.”
Much of the existing research around these topics focuses on hypothetical or philosophical writing about what the right behaviors may be. Some focus tightly on staying neutral, others believe science should actively support social and public goals, but many try to balance the two.
“In this study we forced scientists to make difficult decisions about how they would prioritize objectivity and public impact on a variety of topics,” Hundemer said. “By examining their response patterns, we found three different scientist cultures of thought.”
She described the three groups as being arbiters, advocates and brokers. Arbiters prioritize objectivity and often step out of the public light, while advocates are the scientists who seek to serve a specific public interest, such as fisheries protection, while also considering objectivity, and the brokers find ways to engage social values but do so in a cautious manner.
She explains that this research provides a deeper understanding of what the differences are among the groups. “We’re hoping this work gives scientists a means to think about these potential tensions between objectivity and public impact and how they would navigate those tensions,” Hundemer said. “It can help scientists define their personal ethical standpoint.”
Overall, the research looks to inspire conversations, for scientists to consider their positions and help them to develop a personally defensible position on how they approach ethical topics.
“We don’t propose that there’s a right answer,” Hundemer reiterated, “but there should be a framework to help define a personal philosophy so scientists can stand confident in their decisions, particularly in a polarized scientific environment.”
Para accesar a esta comunicación en español, por favor utilice este enlace.
###
ABOUT UF/IFAS
The mission of the University of Florida Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences (UF/IFAS) is to develop knowledge relevant to agricultural, human and natural resources and to make that knowledge available to sustain and enhance the quality of human life. With more than a dozen research facilities, 67 county Extension offices, and award-winning students and faculty in the UF College of Agricultural and Life Sciences, UF/IFAS brings science-based solutions to the state’s agricultural and natural resources industries, and all Florida residents.
6
