What is Science communication how it can help in bringing modernisation and rural development
What is Science communication how it can help in bringing modernisation and rural development
Science communication was there for education and entertainment. Its main purpose was to make science accessible to ordinary people, to impart knowledge and to stimulate, if possible, enthusiasm and wonder. It was there to open doors to knowledge that were still closed to many; sometimes just to show people what’s there, sometimes to enable them to acquire enough information and understanding to open up science to public scrutiny. In a sense that’s what Mary Shelley did when writing Frankenstein 200 years ago, inspired, in part by popular science communicator, Humphry Davyand his Royal Institution lectures on galvanism and chemistry. In the 20th century, stimulating critical thinking about science and society was added to that ensemble. (And of course, I am simplifying a lot here) (added: after posting: and, as people on twitter have been rightly pointing out, this was a rather rose-tinted characterisation of 19th-century scicomm)
I’d add that it’s not only important to impart, through science communication, the knowledge and (ever-changing) facts that emerge from the activities of scientists; it’s also important for scientists to convey the values of science, and, informed by those, but stepping back from science communication as such, “to be active and engaged participants in civil society“.
Science communication was there for education and entertainment. Its main purpose was to make science accessible to ordinary people, to impart knowledge and to stimulate, if possible, enthusiasm and wonder. It was there to open doors to knowledge that were still closed to many; sometimes just to show people what’s there, sometimes to enable them to acquire enough information and understanding to open up science to public scrutiny. In a sense that’s what Mary Shelley did when writing Frankenstein 200 years ago, inspired, in part by popular science communicator, Humphry Davyand his Royal Institution lectures on galvanism and chemistry. In the 20th century, stimulating critical thinking about science and society was added to that ensemble. (And of course, I am simplifying a lot here) (added: after posting: and, as people on twitter have been rightly pointing out, this was a rather rose-tinted characterisation of 19th-century scicomm)
I’d add that it’s not only important to impart, through science communication, the knowledge and (ever-changing) facts that emerge from the activities of scientists; it’s also important for scientists to convey the values of science, and, informed by those, but stepping back from science communication as such, “to be active and engaged participants in civil society“.
