F. Key Kidder left journalism to pursue a career in government relations, politics and PR, but he still likes to keep one hand in writing. He can be reached at k2@keykidder.com or 410-963-4426.
During the past several years, the scientific community has been subjected to a campaign to improve communications with the external public. The drumbeat for enhanced engagement emanated from a range of interests. People working in industry, academia, and professional organizations as well as communication scholars and gurus all aggressively urged scientists to refine what they say and how they say it in dealings with global collaborators, citizens, funders, opinion leaders, and legislators— all to better improve relationships and outcomes.
The Prisoner’s Dilemma, a classic game theory scenario, perhaps best illustrates the quandary confronting two parties, wherein cooperation and trust is the high road best taken, and acting in one’s own self-interest the low road to doom. Under the rules of the game, two accomplices are interrogated separately. Should one decide to implicate the other, he or she will go free, while his or her partner in crime is jailed for ten years. If both confess, each gets five years. But if neither talks, both get off lightly. It’s a clear win-win, the best possible outcome—yet can they rely on one another to follow suit?
A scientific star was born when the rover Curiosity descended through the Martian atmosphere in August. Viewers watching NASA’s live feed were captivated as flight director Bobak Ferdowski guided the rover through “seven minutes of terror” to its final touchdown on the Red Planet. Bobak was dressed to kill—his Mohawk hairstyle sported red and blue highlights, offset with white stars bleached into the sides of his head.
Not that long ago dialogue was the communication problem du jour in the scientific community. The prevailing deficit communications model had been discredited. Scientific monologues that stuffed factoids into the knowledge void of the
Two lab managers strike up a conversation at an international conference. Their research is complementary and their ambitions meld—surely they will do great science together. Gripped by great expectations, they agree to collaborate on a project....
The scientific community has historically taken a dim view of communications with nonscientific publics.
No thanks, said scientists. What an imposition! Why bother? What good could possibly come from interrupting research, sticking our necks out
It is ever more difficult to argue that motivating
knowledge workers is not the Holy Grail for 21st century
lab managers. “Leadership,” according to management
consultants, “is the process of motivating people to work
together to accomplish great
In 2002, the Howard Hughes Medical Institute (HHMI) and the Burroughs Wellcome Fund (BWF) embarked on an educational project to leave no young manager behind. HHMI and BWF, both in the business of career development, sought to lighten the load of nov
In the great global game to woo and win scientific talent, more employers are extending non-cash motivators as the proverbial carrot. Attracting and retaining talent without pay increases is absolutely a discussion people are having.
Scientific communication researchers see a change in the prevailing mode of scientific communicationthe top-down deficit modelto one in which being engaged with the public at some level is just part of what it means to be a scientist.
