Has Contemporary Academia Outgrown the Carl Sagan Effect?

As a new assistant professor, I am not unaware of the pressure to publish, and to be focused while I am beginning my independent research career. I have also heard disparaging remarks about "popularizers," with the implication that they are sub-standard scientists. Dr. Martinez- Conde's review of studies on the subject refutes this idea, for which I am grateful. To me, it would be a frightening scientific landscape if the task of teaching the public about the content and importance of science were to be relegated to only "sub-par" scientists.

As scientists, we have an obligation to share our discoveries with the public. Most of us have had a significant investment of public funds in our professional development. This initial investment is followed by further funds to support our ongoing research programs. The public thus have a vested interest in, and a right to know about, the discoveries that are made using this public money. And we should feel an obligation to make the results of our work broadly accessible. Although doing this could be as straightforward as writing research articles in more accessible language, direct public outreach is also clearly desirable.

We should not be spurred only by a feeling of duty to communicate with the public, however. Although it is true that we owe a debt to those who are paying for the research we do, scientists should also be thinking about the future of research funding. How many of us have bemoaned the fact that pay lines are going down, the size of grants is being cut back, and the number of applications one must submit in order to obtain funding is going up? It is a bleak picture. I see a cynicism that has led many of my colleagues to pursue non-research industry jobs or jobs outside of science altogether, rather than deal with the funding woes of an academic scientist.

How do funding challenges relate to public outreach? I have frequently seen social media portrayals (often caricatures) of publically funded studies, given as justification for why research budgets should be reined in and funding of science curtailed. By a refusal to engage the public directly, we run the risk of losing control of the narrative about the importance of investing in science. All of us should be concerned about informing the public about what we do, why it is important, and how it fits in with their interests. In light of this, it is not only unfair to characterize those who have public visibility as less able researchers, it is inimical to the long-term survival of the scientific endeavor to do anything but encourage those who have a talent for and inclination toward public outreach. I applaud Dr. Martinez-Conde's effort to bring this important issue to our attention.

Conflict of Interest:

None declared