Should scientists “dumb down” what they write in order to convey clearly the conclusions they draw from their research?
US Researcher
This goes to the heart of what it means to be a good scientists. Also in The Netherlands a rather implicit redefinition seems to be going on in which the amount of coverage in press and (scientific) media becomes an important part of the definition of the quality of the scientist and the science. Whereas a good scientist who does innovative work will fin dit hard to get citations and publications. But the opposite - a lack of citations and publications – does not by default imply innovative work.
To what extent is communication with the broad public part of the definition of a good scientist? And to what extent does the scientist need to do science & communication?
Some scientists appear to have a flair for both excellent science and the communication thereof with the broad public, as e.g. Robbert Dijkgraaf in The Netherlands. Other excellent scientists do not have the communication flair or skill. But that does not make them lesser scientists. It does make them professionals who are in need of communicative support in order to embrace the transparency and wish for accountability of science and the scientific process. Which by default consists of second-, third- and fourth guessing yourself.
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten