Encourager la communication dans la recherche européenne

"The European Research Area (ERA) should have an information and communication dimension," said Jean-Michel Baer, the director of the Commission's unit for science, economy and society, adding that the integrity of science, its ethical dimension and criticism are important parts of that dimension. "People will not accept science if they are only well informed. There is a need for two-way process - a debate - as public wants to give feedback."

Referring to the European Research Advisory Board (EURAB) report on research and societal engagement (June 2007), Baer also argued that scientists should be aware that sometimes bad communication leads to misunderstanding and opposition by the public and thus "to lost innovation opportunities". 

"Issues linked to building a democratic society, which is the aim of science communication, are important to give people the confidence to live in a high-tech society," said Donghong Cheng from the China Association for Science and Technology, referring to the "democratic, civic, scientific and spiritual values of scientific journalism". 

Bernard Schiele, professor at the University of Quebec,  argued that the aim of science journalism should be to help people adapt quickly to a changing society. "How society perceives science and scientific advances has a huge impact on how society develops," he said. 

Vladimir de Semir from the Science Communication Observatory at the Pompeu Fabra University said that research, development and innovation (R+D+i) were not enough. "We need to include a 'C' (communication & culture) to this formula," he said, adding that this 'C' was linked to public education in science and technology.

Alan Leshner, CEO of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, emphasised that scientists' and journalists' goals in communicating science are not the same. "Scientists want to sell science to public whereas journalists just want to communicate science."

However, Tim Radfor, science editor of  The Guardian, argued that "there's no great distinction between science and journalism" regarding the work process, but "nobody ever reads a scientific paper".

After a science journalist insisted that scientists and journalists each have a specific role and that one should not try to link these two professions too closely, Steve Miller, professor in science communication at the University College London agreed that "journalists need to hold science to account, like they do politicians."

"I do not owe science anything but fabulous stories," agreed Tim Radford.

Steve Miller also said that specialised science magazines such as Nature should consider having a short section "vulgarising" their full scientific articles, so that research results would get more media coverage in the general press.