Introduction

We know a great deal more now about the reasons for science communication and its effectiveness than when the Bodmer Report came out in 1985. Today scientists play an important role in all forms of public engagement, but have we internalised this effectively into our universities? And if not, how do we do so? This is the key question for this chapter. Universities recognise the ever-increasing need for showing and discussing the value of science and technology for society. So you would expect they are keen to support their scientists’ efforts in science communication. And they certainly do, but demands are huge and competition for funding has made universities as research and teaching institutions into businesses in their own right. We still struggle with linking the scientists’ praiseworthy but individual activities into our organisations’ science communication efforts. We struggle to explain where we stand: are we a business institution, tainted by the industry money that is poured into research or can we maintain an ‘objective’ and critical point of view about science and its worth for society? Can we indeed build and maintain a trust relationship with the public? Are relations with the wider public shaped by collaboration with industry and others with financial and/or political interests? How do we maintain authenticity and trustworthiness?

A second paradigm shift for science communication is clearly needed – one in which scientists are encouraged by their professional academic institutions to strengthen and streamline their efforts in science communication and incorporate it into organisation policy – a policy which provides a coherent approach to science communication throughout the university. Moreover, the science communication policy must manage the distinction between science communication for the deliberative sharing of scientific knowledge, and for the instrumental promotion of science – a distinction which is discussed by Alfred Nordmann in Chapter 7. Finally, the policy must be communal in the sense that not only are the scientists involved but so also are all the other staff of the organisation. The communal science communication policy must correspond to the mission of the university as an organisation and link individual science communication activities with the role of the university in society. Ideally such a policy will build trust and support the fruitful development of science and technology for society. However this is an ideal, and hopefully will be realised by policy, but it cannot simply be accomplished by making it ‘a matter of policy’ and will need communal commitment and effort to implement in practice.