Bridging the gap: preparing the next generation of brain scientists to communicate with the general public and lawmakers.
Bridging the gap: preparing the next generation of brain scientists to communicate with the general public and lawmakers.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1038/s41386-021-01084-5
复制
发表时间：
2021-12
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Marusak HA
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Singh SD;Marusak HA
科学的很大一部分是公共产品（即纳税人资助的），对科学和医学的信任和理解对于社会从科学进步中获益至关重要。然而，全国调查显示，只有 38% 的人相信科学家会做对公众有利的事情（图 1a）。 2019 年冠状病毒大流行凸显了长期困扰科学界的科学传播 (SciComm) 的不足。如今，公众和立法者对科学的深刻误解和不信任暴露了这些不足，并可能产生严重后果：例如，不遵守医疗或公共卫生指令。科学家和非科学家之间存在分歧的原因之一是，SciComm 通常不是任何级别科学培训的正式组成部分。例如，美国排名前十的神经科学博士项目中只有三个有 SciComm 选修课程或研讨会。没有人有必修课程（图 1 b）。此外，科学培训通常涉及学习如何在学科内进行交流。这就形成了一种从学生传递到未来导师的沟通方式循环，从而扼杀了跨学科合作并限制了潜在的科学影响。重要的是，尤其是围绕神经科学的跨学科研究近年来迅速增加[1]，这为美国神经精神药理学学院和其他神经科学组织领导科学界进行跨学科研究和交流提供了机会。美国国家科学院最近的一次研讨会强调需要鼓励团队科学并转变神经科学培训，以应对与多样性、公平和福祉相关的挑战 [2]。缺乏正式的 SciComm 培训也限制了基于科学的信息到达公众并影响包括政策制定在内的多个层面的决策的能力。神经科学学会、美国科学促进会和国家科学政策网络等机构提供 SciComm、政策和宣传培训的机会。还有一些社区参与的基层努力，例如当地学校计划或大脑意识周活动。然而，这些机会必须由学生和科学家寻找，并且通常不会嵌入课程中。广泛流传的
A large portion of science is a public good (ie, taxpayer funded) and trust and understanding of science and medicine is critical for society to reap the benefits of scientific advancements. Yet, national surveys demonstrate that only 38% have trust in scientists to do what is right for the public (Fig. 1 a). The coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic has highlighted inadequacies in science communication (SciComm) that have long plagued the scientific community. Today, these inadequacies have been laid bare by the profound misunderstanding and mistrust of science among the public and lawmakers and can have serious consequences: for example, poor adherence with medical treatments or public health mandates. One reason for the rift between scientists and non-scientists is that SciComm is not typically a formal part of scientific training at any level. For example, only three out of the top ten US neuroscience PhD programs have elective courses or seminars in SciComm. None have required courses (Fig. 1 b). Further, science training typically involves learning how to communicate within disciplines. This creates a cycle of communication style that is passed on from student to future mentor, which stifles cross-disciplinary collaboration and limits potential scientific impact. Importantly, cross-disciplinary research around neuroscience, in particular, has rapidly increased in recent years [1], which provides an opportunity for the American College of Neuropsychopharmacology and other neuroscientific organizations to lead the scientific community in cross-disciplinary research and communication. A recent National Academy of Sciences workshop highlighted the need to encourage team science and to transform neuroscience training to address challenges related to diversity, equity, and well-being [2].A lack of formal SciComm training also limits the ability for sciencebased information to reach the public and affect decision-making at many levels, including policymaking. There are opportunities for SciComm, policy, and advocacy training through, for example, the Society for Neuroscience, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and the National Science Policy Network. There are also several grassroot efforts for community engagement, such as local school-based programs or Brain Awareness Week events. However, these opportunities must be sought out by students and scientists and are not typically embedded in curricula. The widespread
登录
查看更多内容
影响因子：
4.8
作者：
Meyers, Frederick J.;Mathur, Ambika;Chalkley, Roger
通讯作者：
Chalkley, Roger
影响因子：
5.9
作者：
Turrini, Tabea;Doerler, Daniel;Bonn, Aletta
通讯作者：
Bonn, Aletta
影响因子：
5.7
作者：
Boissy, Adrienne;Windover, Amy K.;Rothberg, Michael B.
通讯作者：
Rothberg, Michael B.
影响因子：
3.9
作者：
Xu, Ran;Ghaffarzadegan, Navid
通讯作者：
Ghaffarzadegan, Navid