A largely undisputed fact in the scientific community is that human activity accelerates climate change, and the ramifications of this are causing extreme weather conditions that put populations across the globe at risk of food scarcity, displacement, and disease (NASA).
However, academics and researchers haven’t come to a consensus on what they should do with their scientific insights. Some scientists feel that their only responsibility is to come up with the data, and contributing any more would be succumbing to the humdrum of politics, which can immediately soil their reputation as biased and take focus away from their actual work.
In addition, there are climate-change professionals with experience as data analysts, visualization experts, infographic designers, and journalists who make it their whole life’s work to communicate complex scientific data to everyday people. Bearing all this in mind, why then, should scientists be morally responsible for sharing information with the public and advocating for climate change?
In short, scientists and researchers have credibility, which makes their perspectives influential in society. Hearing straight from the people doing the research, in a way that is digestible and engaging, inspires the public. Emily Zheng, a former public health innovation analyst for OSB, tells us that speaking in a common language is the first step scientists and researchers need to take to bridge the gap between data and discourse.
“In academia, we fall into this trap of using language or terminology that reflects the degree of education to which we have achieved. But then we forget that not everyone has had that privilege. Some [research] never leaves the academic community, and I challenge the academic institution to not only train their students how to relay information to the common people but also use it to take action.”
To Emily’s point, students in academic institutions should be trained to speak to the public in a way that is informative and useful, so the future generation of scientists feel like they can and should contribute directly to public debate. One of the three pillars of the Universal Ethical Code for Scientists is responsibility. The ethical code states that scientists have a responsibility to, “...discuss the issues that science raises for society, [and] listen to the aspirations and concerns of others”.
We have seen research stimulate discourse before. American marine biologist Rachel Carson wrote Silent Spring in 1962, a book on the harm of pesticides on wildlife biodiversity and health, that left a huge impact on how America views pollution and climate change. Before her book was published, no government on the planet had a department or ministry of the environment (Academic Matters). Following Carson’s book, protecting the environment from toxic chemicals has become a common-sense issue that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency oversees.
What stalls climate action is the gridlock of many seemingly conflicting elements: science and politics, supply and demand, equity and limited resources. Academia alone cannot create the framework to protect communities vulnerable to the impacts of the climate crisis. Ultimately, scientists and researchers must stimulate conversation within academic and non-academic communities. When academics empower people of all education levels with their research, they build bridges of understanding that can be the first step to social change.
Writing by Nia-Simone Eccleston, Design Strategist Apprentice. Research by Emily Zheng, Public Health Innovation Analyst Intern. Illustration by Sophie Becker, Design Innovation Strategist.
