This blog post examines the balance and importance of whether scientists should focus on research or prioritize communication with the public.
As interest in science and technology grows, more scientists are engaging with the public. They dedicate effort to communication through lectures, book writing, and media appearances. Public engagement itself is positive and beneficial for both society and individuals. But what if scientists prioritize public communication over their research? Indeed, there have been cases where some scientists neglected their research to gain public popularity and secure research funding. This can pose significant problems for the advancement of science and society.
The topic this article addresses is whether scientists must necessarily possess the ability to lecture before the public and write for the general audience. A scientist’s primary responsibility is to uncover new scientific knowledge and cultivate outstanding talent. Demanding that scientists also possess essential talents outside of scientific research—namely, communication skills—could place an unnecessary burden on both the individual scientist and society. Of course, this wouldn’t apply to scientists who already possess strong communication skills. However, since there are more scientists lacking these skills, it would be more efficient to establish separate media or personnel dedicated to effectively conveying research findings to the public.
Moreover, one reason scientists communicate their findings to the public is likely to gain popularity and fame. This is to secure more research funding. In such a situation, if scientists become overly preoccupied with popularity, the possibility of distorting their research content cannot be ruled out. For example, in 2005, Dr. Hwang Woo-suk gained fervent public popularity by fabricating his research papers, but the subsequent revelation of this fraud caused a major scandal. This incident tarnished public perception of stem cell research, spread distrust in science, and ultimately hindered technological progress. Actions prioritizing public popularity over one’s own research ultimately impeded the advancement of science and technology.
On the other hand, there are also significant positive effects when scientists possess the ability to communicate with the public. As the average educational level of the public has risen, so has the level of scientific and technological understanding, and the public has developed the intellectual capacity to comprehend somewhat advanced science. This allows scientists the advantage of sharing their research direction with the public, receiving feedback, and making adjustments. However, if research direction is set by excessively reflecting public opinion, there is a high risk of it leaning toward commercial research rather than academic research. The public tends to be interested in research with immediate practical applications, making this orientation likely to prioritize commercial research over academic research. Consequently, as scientific and technological research tilts toward commercial fields, the pace of development in natural science research may slow relatively.
Although there is a recent trend of increasing investment in the natural sciences sector, the reality remains that research funding for engineering fields is overwhelmingly larger. Even if funding for natural science research were to increase significantly, it would be difficult to match the level of investment in engineering research. Indeed, this imbalance in funding allocation was highlighted in the 2006 research report ‘A Study on Rational Research Funding Distribution for Basic Science Development’ and the 2012 essay ‘We Must Eliminate Resistance and Bubble in Basic Science Investment’. This perception is unlikely to change easily in the short term, making it highly probable that scientists will focus on research reflecting public demand.
Of course, the ability to communicate with the public can play a positive role in revitalizing neglected research fields by emphasizing their importance and necessity. However, this ultimately circles back to the argument that the importance of research itself must be prioritized more. This is because the significance and necessity of research can be sufficiently conveyed through its outcomes.
Famous scientists like Richard Feynman or Stephen Hawking primarily address content accessible to the general public in popular science books or lectures, rather than their research papers. While this helps increase public interest and understanding of science, it does not provide substantive research information. Making scientific knowledge widely known and familiar to the public is positive, but it cannot provide the public with practical technical information.
There have also been instances where communication with the public was severed during the development of science and technology. For example, dangerous facilities like nuclear power plants and radioactive waste disposal sites were able to advance precisely because of this disconnect with the public. Had the dangers of nuclear power been widely known beforehand, it would not have developed to its current extent. While the lack of communication with the public was a mistake, it has enabled the advancement of many technologies that contribute to human life. For instance, without nuclear power plants, many people would suffer from electricity shortages, and environmental destruction would be severe. If we attempt to advance science and technology while constantly warning the public about the dangers of technology, we must consider that the pace of scientific progress could slow due to minor risks.
In conclusion, scientists should prioritize their research and duties over communication with the public. Appropriate communication can create positive synergy, but if they forget their core responsibilities and chase only public popularity, the future of scientific progress will be bleak.
