In January 2008, Australia’s Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research Senator Kim Carr pledged to provide a charter to protect scientific debate.

At a forum organised by the Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies (FASTS) to discuss scientists’ rights and obligations in February, Minister Carr said: “I believe that the obligations of scientists go well beyond simply explaining clearly what they're up to… Scientists and researchers have legitimate – I would say essential – roles as public intellectuals. They have a responsibility to contribute to public debate within their fields”.

However a number of things must happen before it is the norm for scientists to communicate with the public, contribute to public debate and resume a role as public intellectuals.

These include firstly education about science communication in all science degrees, and secondly professional rewards for such activities. Rewards should include bonus points in all grant schemes for credible plans and track record in dissemination of research, and increased emphasis of the service portfolio in promotion.

This article however focuses on science communication education. The Employability Skills for the Future report (DEST, 2002) identified communication skills as being critical. In a study for the Australian Council of Deans of Science (2001), close to 90 per cent of the 1,245 graduates surveyed stated that their degree did not provide them with the level of communication skills required by their employer.

Representatives of industry employers have reported an overall lack of confidence in graduate abilities, particularly with respect to ‘generic skills’ gained through a Bachelor of Science (Raison, 2006). Other studies recommend science communication training at undergraduate and postgraduate levels (Clarke, 2001; House of Lords, 2000; Royal Society, 2006).

Some universities have responded to the need for improved science communication by establishing courses and programs. In science communication, translating complex concepts into simple, yet accurate information is always a key element. This ability to explain work in simple terms means that one must have a clear understanding of the material that she or he is presenting. Students acknowledge that insights and skills of science communication enhance their overall performance in science.

A two-pronged approach to teaching communication has the greatest likelihood of providing students with enhanced communication skills. Students should be taught ‘generic skills’ by experts in the appropriate field (e.g. mathematics by mathematicians, communication by communication academics, etc). Understanding, knowledge and skills can then be consolidated in context within discipline units.

An advantage of dedicated units is that they are more likely to deliver science graduates with improved communication skills than teaching communication skills solely within disciplines, as has been the dominant model in the past.

Participation by scientists within society is at the heart of the discipline of science communication. Science communication education and training can make a crucial difference to how scientific and technical knowledge circulates and is received by decision makers and in the wider community.

Science and technology need articulate communicators to engage in public debates, clarify issues and respond to real public concern.

Dr Nancy Longnecker is the Coordinator of the University of Western Australia’s Science Communication Program and immediate past president of the WA branch of the Australian Science Communicators.