ABSTRACT
In January 2007, Alan Leshner, chief executive officer of Science magazine issued a call for increased communication training for graduate students of science. Only two months later, the U.S. House of Representatives considered the Scientific Communications Act (HR 1453), a bill to request funding from the National Science Foundation to support communication training for future scientists (GovTrack.us, 2007). Although HR 1453 did not pass, these calls to action underscore recognition of the need for more serious attention to science communication education. Academic programs that focus on science communication do exist at the university level; a directory published by the University of Wisconsin, home to one of the oldest science communications programs in the United States, lists 47 universities nationwide that offer programs and/or courses for students interested in science communication (University of Wisconsin, n.d.). However, only five of those universities offer communication courses that are housed within or explicitly affiliated with science programs. The programs offered at the remaining 42 universities are typically housed within communications or journalism departments and programs, although a sampling of course offerings and scholarship can also be found across a range of other disciplines. For example, technical writing might be taught in engineering or English departments, science writing might be taught in journalism or political science departments, and so forth. The program tree presented in Figure 10.1 reflects the taxonomy of science communication programs listed on the University of Wisconsin-Madison Directory of Science Communication Courses and Programs. To meet the demand for science communication education, some science programs-like the program at Arkansas State University, Jonesborohave begun to develop communications curricula within their own courses and departments. Yet, offering communication education under the auspices of a science program can be a formidable challenge. For example, scientists who venture out of the classroom, laboratory or field to work with the media (or who become employed by media outlets) may lack sufficient media training to understand the adversarial role of the free press (Cooke,
2007). They may also lack an understanding of the responsibility of the media to the public and the media’s function as “watchdog” via criticism and oversight of major institutions (Benn, 1979). And they may have a limited understanding of what makes a story newsworthy. As a result, science writers trained in a science program may face unanticipated consequences and reactions to their work. At the same time, however, science communication courses offered by traditional journalism departments may fail to meet the exacting and varied technical demands of the scientific community. Although some flagship institutions like the University of Wisconsin may be able to offer a broad set of courses and programs that allow for specialization ranging from risk management for financial managers to training in the hard sciences for journalists, science communication courses and programs nested in journalism departments at smaller academic institutions face challenges posed by the constraints of more limited course offerings and budgetary confines. Given those constraints, it can be difficult to offer students a broad array of communication training that prepares them to meet the demands of the scientific community.
