The History of Science explores the ways in which scientific discoveries have changed the way we see ourselves. Depending on the specific cultural contexts in which discoveries are made, they may challenge our personal, culturally conditioned beliefs and experiences. When trying to disseminate scientific knowledge/understanding, the audience must be taken into account.
Advances in our understanding of brain function and its relation to behaviour are regularly being made within the neurosciences, yet very little of it passes into the public imagination. Ideas are either too complex or too abstract, often being so far removed from daily experience that they are rendered alien with regards to both their content and their relevance. Thus, cutting-edge, and highly valuable, research appears little more than a collection of strange abstractions and meaningless details. This is the critical area where my interests lie, the point where the results of scientific research are in danger of remaining the preserve of academic study.
I believe there is great value in communicating ideas drawn from neuroscience to a wider, non-specialist audience, to give both an insight into the inner workings of the brain as well as drive the spirit of scientific investigation; to challenge people on what they experience every day as seemingly automatic and implicitly natural; to reveal the complex mechanisms and processes that lie beneath. The aim, therefore, is to reconnect the science of the brain with the experiences it engenders.
Thus, in my current work, I am exploring new forms of communicating science to a wider audience, forms that do not compromise the overall integrity of the underlying scientific assumptions or findings. Beyond this, I hope to extrapolate from isolated discoveries within a field of research to suggest how and why they may be relevant to the experience of the world around us, why these ideas are worthy of attention.
But how are these ideas to be communicated? At one end of the scale, scientific knowledge can be presented without much consideration for its audience. Further along, an awareness of the type of audience can determine both the method by which the science is portrayed and the use of certain content or metaphor. Establishing such ‘common ground’ will be key if the communication of ideas is to be successful. Finally, at the opposite end of the scale, the audience plays a role in determining the methods of knowledge dissemination, even altering contents through user interaction. The audience now assume an active role.
This type of research complements our understanding of how scientific discoveries filter through and impact society by directly considering the process of communication itself as a dynamic tension between the ‘disseminator’ and ‘audience’.
