A meeting with the PSA's office

The Office of the Principal Scientific Adviser (PSA) organised a meeting with science communicators from around India on January 27, in New Delhi. Some of my notes from the meeting are displayed below, published with three caveats.

First, my notes are not to be treated as the minutes of the meeting; I only jotted down what I personally found interesting. Some 75% of the words in there are part of suggestions and recommendations advanced by different people; the remainder are, broadly, observations. They appear in no discernible order not because I jumbled them up but because participants offered both kinds of statements throughout. The meeting itself lasted for seven or so hours (including breaks for lunch and tea), so every single statement was also accompanied by extensive discussion. Finally, I have temporarily withheld some portions because I plan to discuss them in additional blog posts.

Second, the meeting followed the Chatham House Rules, which means I am not at liberty to attribute statements uttered during the course of the meeting to their human originators. I have also not identified my own words where possible not because I want to hide but because, by virtue of these ideas appearing on my blog, I take full responsibility (but not authorship) for their publicisation.

Third, though the meeting was organised by the Office of the PSA, its members were not the only ones of the government present at the meeting. Representatives of some other government-affiliated bodies were also in attendance. So statements obviously uttered by a government official – if any do come across that way – are not necessarily attributable to members of the Office of the PSA.

“We invest a lot in science, we don’t use it imaginatively enough.”

Three major science related issues:

1. Climate change
2. Dramatic consequences of our growth on biodiversity
3. B/c of these two, how one issues addresses sustainable development

• Different roles for journalists within and without the government
• Meeting is about what each one of us can do — but what is that?
• Each one of us can say “I could do better if only you could better empathise with what I do”
• Need for skill-sharing events for science journalists/communicators
• CSIR’s National Institute of Science Communication and Information Resources has a centre for science and media relations, and a national science library
• Indian Council of Medical Research has a science communication policy but all press releases need to be okayed by health minister!
• Knowledge making is wrapped up in identity
• Regional language communicators don’t have access to press releases, etc. in regional languages, nor access to translators
• Department of Science and Technology and IIT Kanpur working on machine-translations of scientific content of Wikipedia
• Netherlands Science Foundation published a book compiling public responses to question ‘what do you think of science?’
• In the process of teaching kids science, you can also get them to perform science and use the data (e.g. mapping nematode density in soil using Foldscope)
• Slack group for science communicators, channels divided by topic
• Leaders of scientific bodies need to be trained on how to deal with journalists, how to respond in interviews, etc.
• Indian Space Research Organisation, Defence R&D Organisation and Department of Atomic Energy need to not be so shut off! What are they hiding? If nothing to hide, why aren’t they reachable?
• Need structural reforms for institutional research outreach — can’t bank on skills, initiative of individual science communicators at institutes to ensure effective outreach
• Need to decentralise PR efforts at institutions
• People trained in science communication need to find jobs/employment
• Pieces shortlisted for AWSAR award could be put on a CC BY-ND license so news publications can republish them en masse without edits
• Please hold meetings like this at periodic intervals, let this not be a one-time thing
• Issues with covering science: Lack of investment, few people covering science, not enough training opportunities, not enough science communication research in India
• Need local meet-ups between journalists and scientists to get to know each other, facilitated by the government
• Outreachers needn’t have to be highly regarded scientists, even grad students can give talks — and kids will come to listen
• Twitter is an elite platform — science communicators that need to stay in touch need to do more; most science communicators don’t know each other!
• Can we host one edition of the World Conference of Science Journalists in India?
• What happened to the Indian Science Writers’ Association?
• Today the mind is not without fear! The political climate is dire, people can’t freely speak their minds without fear of reprisal — only obvious that this should affect science journalism also
• ISRO is a darling of the media, the government and the masses but has shit outreach! Rs 10,000 crore being spent on Gaganyaan but the amount of info on it in the public domain is poop.
• CSIR’s Institute of Genomics and Integrative Biology is very open and accessible, director needs to be kept in the loop about some press interaction but that’s it; perhaps the same template can be recreated in other institutes?
• Outreach at scientific institutions is a matter of trust: if director doesn’t trust scientists to speak up without permission, and if PR people don’t respond to emails or phone calls, impression is that there is no trust within the institute as well as that the institute would like journalists to not be curious
• People trained in science communication (informally also) need a place to practice their newfound skills.
• Private sector industry is in the blindspot of journalists
• People can more easily relate to lived experiences; aesthetically pleasing (beautiful-looking) stories are important
• Most people have not had access to the tools of science, we need to build more affordable and accessible tools
• Don’t attribute to malfeasance what can be attributed to not paying attention, incompetence, etc.
• Journalistic deep-dives are good but lack of resources to undertake, not many publications do it either, except maybe The Wire and Caravan; can science communicators and the government set up a longform mag together?
• Create a national mentorship network where contact details of ‘mentors’ are shared and mentees enrolled in the programme can ask them questions, seek guidance, etc.
• Consider setting up a ‘science media centre’ — but can existing and functional models in Australia and the UK be ported to India without facing any issues?
• Entities like IndiaBioscience could handle biology research outreach for scientific institutes in, say, the South India region or Bangalore region with some support from the government. That would be better than an SMC-from-scratch.
• Consider including science communication in government’s new draft Scientific Social Responsibility policy and other S&T innovation policies
• Allocate a fixed portion of funding for research for public outreach and communication (such as 2%)
• Need more formal recognition for science communication researchers within scientific institutions; members currently stuck in a limbo between outreach office and scientists, makes it difficult to acquire funds for work
• Support individual citizen science initiatives
• Need better distinction between outreach groups and press offices — we don’t have a good press office anywhere in the country! Press officers encourage journalistic activity, don’t just promote institute’s virtues but look out for the institute as situated in the country’s overall science and society landscape
• Any plans to undertake similar deliberations on philosophy of science (including culture of research, ethics and moral responsibilities)?
• Scientific institutions could consider hosting journalists for one day a month to get to know each other
• What’s in it for the scientist to speak to a journalist about their work? Need stronger incentives — journalists can provide some of that by establishing trust with the scientist, but can journalists alone provide incentives? Is it even their responsibility?
• Consider conducting a ‘scientific temper survey’ to understand science literacy as well as people’s perceptions of science — could help government formulate better policies, and communicators and journalists to better understand what exactly their challenges are
• Need to formulate specific guidelines for science communication units at scientific research institutions as well as for funding agencies
• Set up fellowships and grants for science communicators, but the government needs to think about attaching as few strings as possible to such assistance
• Need for more government support for regional and local newspapers vis-à-vis covering science, especially local science
• Need to use multimedia – especially short videos, podcasts illustrations and other aids – to communicate science instead of sticking to writing; visuals in particular could help surmount language barrier right away