Talk:Science communication

This  level-5 vital article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Technology This article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TechnologyWikipedia:WikiProject TechnologyTemplate:WikiProject TechnologyTechnology Science Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Science on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject ScienceTemplate:WikiProject Sciencescience Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article was previously a Science Collaboration of the Month.

This article is currently the subject of an educational assignment.

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 August 2020 and 4 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: VAllezayJ.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 08:46, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I find the section truly unnecessarily wordy. Does anyone disagree? And if not, does anyone else want to make it more to-the-point before I try??-Tesseract²(talk) 18:24, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Has anyone compiled a list of scientists who are especially notable as science communicators? Over the past 50 years there is a short list of people who have established themselves as communicators to the English-speaking public via mass media specifically to advance public familiarity with and understanding of the sciences. Here's my list. Many scientists have written books meant to educate the public about their area of study (as with Hawking's "A Brief History of Time". Then again, maybe Hawking should be on the list (?) as he may fit the criteria), but rather I am focusing on those who are known for their promotion of science or the scientific method, in general. I don't know if this merits the article or not, but I'll throw it out there for consideration. --Replysixty (talk) 09:19, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Neil deGrasse Tyson - host Nova Science now, regular media go-to guy for scientific questions
• Bill Nye - AKA "Science Guy" - educator and promoter of sciences, especially to children.
• Carl Sagan - author and host of "Cosmos (TV show)"
• David Attenborough - broadcaster, naturalist - host of the BBC "Life" series
• Don Herbert AKA "Mr. Wizard" - a TV personality whose show would teach the scientific method to kids
• Richard Feynman - physicist who wrote several books popularizing critical thinking and promoting sciences
• Adam Savage/Jamie Hyneman - hosts of Mythbusters, a TV show which popularizes science and testing a hypothesis via experiments and evidence gathering.
• Michael Stevens of YouTube channel "VSauce"
• Derek Muller- science education YouTube channel "Veritasium"
• Destin Sandlin - YouTube science communicator

I think that's really great. If we could get at least 10 people, along with reliable sources establishing them as "brilliant science communicators", then it would be worth making a list. For instance, look anywhere and you will find people prasiing Carl Sagan's science communication.

Instead of necessarily making some kind of List of notable science communicators, it might be cool to find passages from these communicators and write them into the article. E.g. "Carl Sagan says that science communication needs to be..." -Tesseract²(talk) 16:32, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I also like the notion of compiling a list, but another way to make it easy to navigate folks would be to create a category such that "science communicators" or "science communication" would exist at the bottom of these folks existing pages. For example, Destin_Sandlin is a youtuber who would certainly fall into the science communicator category. I propose using the category function but I don't know how to make a new one (e.g., science communicators) and I don't have experience using categories to use "science communication" at the bottom of these folks pages. Djgriffin7 (talk) 21:19, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, this is a plan six years in the making so far. I wonder if there were people throughout history who served as media ambassadors for the sciences in popular culture. Since I compiled that list I'd add two more Youtubers to Destin_Sandlin who would IMO certainly qualify (added to list above):

* Derek Muller = of science education YouTube channel "Veritasium"

* Michael Stevens of YouTube channel "VSauce"

Concern-- This list may be biased to an English-speaking audience. Are there others? What would this page be called-- "Science Educators"? "Science Ambassadors" "Science Communicators"? --Replysixty (talk) 07:02, 22 October 2018 (UTC) --- addendum: I like the idea of adding an article category for "ambassador" or "educator"... that might be the best way to do it. Also, how about including Brady_Haran of Numberphile and Computerphile? --Replysixty (talk) 07:09, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think a section of science ambassadors should be added to the page. There's a huge gender bias in the suggested ambassadors and no single person represents the field. Smojarad (talk) 01:10, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"No single person represents the field" -- I'm not sure that's a criticism for creating a list (?) or a reason to create one. Regardless, I do recognize that the list appears gender-biased (and don't know if that bias is reflective of the list or regrettably the field itself), but I for one would welcome the contribution of more names as I do think a list of notable science communicators is encyclopedic and useful to the reader. Ann Druyan and Sahana Srinivasan are two more to add. --Replysixty (talk) 08:53, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The words "science policy" really jumped out at me. That would be ethics and politics. Deciding what our ethical and political goals are going to be is not a scientific question - or at least not an empirical question. Is there some science experiment you can do which will tell you who to vote for? Of course not.

Another one that jumps out is "Rejected superstitious beliefs." Highly ambiguous. Are all religious views except atheism and all metaphysical views except naturlaism-materialism "superstitious beilefs?" That would not be science - that would be begging the question wearing the false cloak of "science." --2610:E0:A040:E0F5:41FA:3CB3:308E:C9BD (talk) 03:21, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to propose some changes to the Science Communication page. Although I find it interesting I feel that we could do a lot to improve it for the intended audience and indeed ourselves. I should mention I am a Science, Communication and Society master’s degree student and am going to use this as part of an assignment I have been set. In my opinion the basic structure of the page could be improved. I intend to help with this process by adding a section based around the Public’s Engagement with Science particularly focussing within the UK, primarily focussing on The Bodmer Report. However, as part of this I would like to relate this to any such movements/reports which may have taken place globally. Therefore, I wonder if anyone may be able to help me with this or have some pointers or suggestions which I may be able to include within this section? I would also like to change the image of Newton’s cradle to something which is more relevant to the subject so again if anyone has any suggestions please go ahead and let me know.

With regards to my earlier comments about the structure of the page some suggestions may include the history of science communication, methods and theories such as the deficit model which doesn’t appear on the page, a more structured list of key science communicators. Adding to this I think a section on the deficit model will fit well after the section I propose to add. Led90 (talk) 16:56, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Science communication. You have new messages at Led90's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I agree the page needs some restructuring. How about we start with a 'history' heading and putting all the C19 and C20 content in that? There's also pre-C19 material that can be added. I would then propose a section that deals with science communication as a topic of academic consideration (as opposed to practice). This could include the different methods already present, though perhaps in shorter form for one or two of them. Heuristics in particular seems to imbalance the page overall - with this level of detail perhaps it could be a page in its own right? This section would also be the place to talk about deficit model, engagement etc. Dunstanne (talk) 10:51, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am proposing to add a section giving a general overview of the ways in which science is communicated to the public. This will be quite a broad overview but this is currently missing from the page so I feel it is worthwhile adding it. I will be covering three main methods of communicating science, which is mostly based on the work of UCL lecture Karen Bultitude. These areas are: print, face-to-face and online. Other contributors may feel it worthwhile to go more in-depth with each of these areas, for example, by adding some more information about science journalism, science festivals, the rise of Citizen Science and so on. My intention at this point, though, is just to give a basic picture of methods of communicating science to the public. I am also a Science, Communication and Society master’s degree student Wordnerd21 (talk) 19:33, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Science communication. You have new messages at Wordnerd21's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

This sounds good to me. I am writing 2 paragraphs on the popularisation of science in the 19th century. Should we combine our sections into one header? If so, what do you think it should be called? "Science in popular culture?" First with my section regarding the 19th c., followed by your section on the methods (I'm assuming with contemporary examples)? Codyhenault (talk) 10:58, 28 October 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Hello, Science communication. You have new messages at Codyhenault's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thanks, that makes sense to me. My examples are contemporary so I agree it would make sense to add my paragraphs after yours. Can I suggest the heading "Science in popular culture and the media" as my examples are all media-focussed? Wordnerd21 (talk) 09:50, 29 October 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Hello, Science communication. You have new messages at Wordnerd21's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

That sounds good to me. I'll create the header and add some of my sections today. I'll add 'the birth of public science' and 'scientific media in the 19th century' as subheadings and you can add yours to them whenever you finish yours? Codyhenault (talk) 13:59, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm currently planning to add a selection on the Science Communication page on the popularization of science in the 19th century. Rather than write about the history of science through the ages, I was looking to highlight the importance of science and culture in the 19th century by giving a brief summary of the history of science (I recognize that there is limited wiki pages on this and I would like to edit these at a later date), then by splitting my section into two paragraphs: one on the more social groups of science, and the second paragraph on methods of publication and accessibility. In doing so, I think it would provide a good foundation for this page and would add to Wordnerd21's broad overview of the communication of science. Codyhenault (talk) 10:52, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. As part of an educational assignment, my group and I just added a new section about the effects of twitter on scientific communication. Just wanted to give the admins and editors a heads up. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drgruhin (talk • contribs) 19:31, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The page needs some major work, and it might make sense to rethink what's important and relevant. Is anyone opposed to overhauling and revising the headers? I'm also concerned that this page reads like a term paper. Phrasing is not neutral toned.Smojarad (talk) 01:38, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wide overlap. fgnievinski (talk) 05:02, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Unnecessary. 2001:8003:9008:1301:21D0:D945:43A0:166E (talk) 13:17, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I would say these are not the same thing. SciComm is the act of accurately communicating science conducted by scientists; popular science is the general public interpretation of science that may or may not reflect how it is communicated. Please let me know if you disagree. Thanks! SoloBear89 21:38, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Closing, given consensus not to merge. Klbrain (talk) 06:58, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Within the sciences, there are awards for science communication—the ACS Grady-Stack Award & the AGU Ambassador Award. Dr. Christopher Reddy has authored a book “Science Communication in a Crisis: An Insider’s Guide”. Perhaps these should be mentioned? I am sure there are other awards & other efforts within other disciplines. This article is very theoretical but perhaps needs a practical & more recent view added? I’m not criticizing, but much may have changed since this was written. I hope I am not out of line, but I wanted to point this out. SFGMary (talk) 09:14, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]