Gràcies a la Mercè Piqueras i a la llista de distribució de l’ACCC he conegut una nota de l’International Council for Science (ICSU) sobre comunicació científica, redactada pel seu comité de llibertat i responsabilitat en la conducta científica (Committee on Freedom and Responsibility in the conduct of Science). Fa referència a la responsabilitat de les persones que fan ciència:
Guidelines and responsibilities of scientists
1. Scientists are individually accountable for their public communications and
should be aware of their potential impact on both science and society.
2. Regardless of the audience, communications should be accurate and CFRS, December, 2010
considered, reflecting the status of scientific evidence and uncertainty.
3. Estimates of the importance, future implications and impact of scientific
results should be realistic.
4. Despite pressures to the contrary, public communication of new scientific
findings should normally follow acceptance by peer review.
5. Scientists have a special duty to communicate findings that have
implications for human survival or well being, including threats to the
environment.
6. Scientists responding to public emergencies should be aware of the
potential ramifications of their messages and take particular care to avoid
both undue alarmism and complacency.
7. Scientists should be transparent in communicating the limits of their own
personal expertise and make the distinction between those areas of science
in which they might reasonably be considered by their peers to have
expertise and other areas on which they may express views.
8. As members of the broad and diverse public, scientists need to understand
the different audiences that they communicate with, and what those
audiences’ requirements are in terms of appreciation and understanding of
the subject matter.
9. Science communications may be directed primarily towards selected groups
in society, such as politicians, industrialists and advocacy groups, but they
should, as far as possible, be publicly accessible.
10. Communication is a two-way process: scientists should not only present
their findings but should also be prepared to engage in relevant debate and
discussion
Cada punt em sembla important, però em sembla especialment rellevant el quart: la comunicació pública de resultats científics hauria de fer-se normalment després d’un període d’acceptació via revisió per parells. I és que darrerament he vist que a vegades es fa difusió d’alguns temes que corresponen a publicacions enviades per publicar, però sense haver passat l’acceptació corresponent, és a dir, sense el vist-i-plau de la qualitat científica.
També és important el punt 7: un científic ha de separar el que diu en funció de la seva expertesa, d’allò que opina en altres àmbits en els quals no n’és, d’expert.
I per acabar, el punt 10, vé a indicar la importància de la Ciència 2.0: no n’hi ha prou en comunicar de forma unidireccional, sinó que s’ha de participar del debat públic, cal discutir. Afegint-hi el punt 8 (la necessitat de conèixer les expectatives dels diferents tipus de públic) i el 6 (ramificacions de les seves informacions), en el fons estem parlant de la presència dels científics a les xarxes socials.