Last night the Biochemical Society hosted one of its regular TalkFest meetings. Being hundreds of miles away and entirely unaware of the occasion, I was not in attendance, but I picked up some interesting tweets under the #talkfest hashtag last night.
The subject was science communication and whether it is an inherently political activity. There were apparently suggestions that most sci comms people concentrate on cheerleading rather than challenging scientists and that they rarely question motive or funding. There was also a suggestion that science communicators should focus on opening science to the public.
These observations were particularly interesting when juxtaposed against some comments made by Felicity Mellor, a science comms academic who was also involved in the BBC review of science.
On climate, climate skeptics could be the usual source for the opposing view #talkfest
But if skeptics are part of the story, shouldn't they be quoted? - this all felicity mellor #talkfest
Isn't that odd? In climate science, it is the sceptics who are challenging scientists. It is sceptics who have opened the subject to the public. And the sci comms community has been at the forefront of efforts to cheerlead for the mainstream, to ignored vested interests, to shut down debate, to argue from authority, and to keep dissent off the airwaves.
Does the science communication community have something of a dilemma?
(Christian at the Carbon Brief, from whom I snaffled the tweets above, warns me that he may not have quoted Felicity Mellor precisely. The session is apparently slated to be podcast at a later date, so we'll find out then)