There was a piece research published in 2020, that I just can’t get out of my head.
The study analysed research grants from 333 donors worldwide, covering 4.3 million awards and a cumulative value of USD 1.3 trillion from 1950 to 2021. It found that between 1990 and 2018, natural and technical sciences received seven times more funding than the social sciences for research on climate change-related issues.
Why should we care?
Because many of the technical solutions to climate change already exist or are well in the works, but the biggest hurdles to urgent, genuine action on climate change are people: attitudes, cultural norms, incentives, and politics to limit global warming.
We have serious disinformation campaigns, political inaction, public confusion and fear, and globally only 0.12% of all research funding was spent on the social science of climate mitigation! That’s crazy!
Social sciences encompasses disciplines including anthropology, economics, political science, sociology, psychology, and many others.
It helps us:
1. understand human behaviour, providing insights to help us make better decisions in our personal and professional lives;
2. develop effective strategies to improve poverty, inequality, and discrimination by addressing the root causes of these problems;
3. understand the impact of public policy on individuals and communities, providing policymakers with evidence-based recommendations for improving outcomes; and
4. understand how we are advancing knowledge across all parts of society.
Discovery without a serious analysis of behavioural and engagement factors means science lacks the ability to truly and equitably change society and tackle urgent problems like climate change.
Really I can’t say it better than these two tweets:
But what about science communication?
And I have a further question: how much of that $1.3 trillion grant money had actual communication funding tied to it? How many advances or insights got stuck in a lab going nowhere because there was no-one to assess its potential impact and tell people about it?
It’s hard to know, in retrospect, where we’d be if we’d invested properly in science communication. And when I say properly, I mean not just sending out press releases or doing a few press interviews. I mean making sure that when people wanted to know more about the topic of research, the science institute answered their questions and became a valuable resource for the public. And making sure leaders had the evidence they needed – at the right time, and in the right format – to support considered, complex decisions for the future.
But what we do know is that, right now, society is not fully engaged with science.
There is a disturbing prevalence of climate and vaccination skepticism, while scare stories about artificial intelligence continue to dominate the conversation, overshadowing its potential benefits. In addition, many people remain unaware of the importance of cyber security, leaving themselves and their data vulnerable. Meanwhile, natural resources are being depleted at an alarming rate with little resistance. I’m not blaming the STEM sector for disinformation, but it is crucial that we empower individuals and policymakers to better understand and address complex scientific issues.
How about including science communication in research grants!
Governments and funding agencies can ensure that the results of publicly funded research are effectively communicated and reach a wider audience by including funds for expert science communication in the grants they award.
By allocating a percentage of the entire research grant to science communication and measuring its effectiveness, these grants can provide researchers with the resources they need to communicate their findings to key audiences in a relevant and accessible way.
1. enhancing public understanding and support of science;
2. encouraging more inclusive and diverse STEM workforce;
3. promoting the use of evidence-based policy-making and decision-making; and
4. fostering collaboration and interdisciplinary exchange between researchers, allowing for more diverse perspectives and approaches to be considered.
Including communication in research grants is not a radical idea. Looking globally, there are a few examples.
The National Science Foundation (NSF) in the United States has included the “Broader Impacts” funding criteria in its grant programmes since the foundation’s inception in 1950. These criteria encourage grant recipients to consider the potential wider impacts of their research and how they can communicate their findings to the public and engage with stakeholders outside of academia.
Similarly, the European Commission provides funding for science communication activities through its Horizon 2020 programme, which includes a “Science with and for Society” sub-programme.
While these are important – they are not enough. The status quo of research funding is not working.
Science needs the social sciences and the communicators
Scientific discovery in a vacuum is an exercise in vanity. The lab is part of, connected to, influenced by – and should influence – the wider world.
To achieve this, social science research and science communication should be integrated into STEM grants and receive more funding. Furthermore, every research grant should include a communication strategy and funding.
It is not enough for groundbreaking scientific discoveries to only be understood by researchers; they must also be communicated effectively to the broader community to gain support and maximise their impact. Therefore, social sciences and science communication are essential investments to bridge the gap between scientific research and society.
Science needs society, and society needs science. Social sciences and science communication play a vital role in connecting and catalysing understanding and action.
Opinion by Kylie Ahern, Publisher of The Brilliant and CEO of STEM Matters