The revitalisation of Australia’s National Science and Research Priorities and National Science Statement will shape a long-term vision for the Australian science system. This process is intended to re-energise conversations across the Australian science and research sector. This process is being led by Australia’s Chief Scientist, Dr Cathy Foley.

In March, co-presidents Jirana Craven and Tom Carruthers were invited to contribute to a roundtable convened by Dr Foley. We extend our thanks the the Office of the Chief Scientist for engaging with the ASC.

At the time, several members contributed to a document of issues that were used to inform the discussion. The ASC is pleased to see some of the language used by the co-presidents make its way into the draft.

On 29 September, the following response to the draft was submitted. The submission will be publicly viewable on the Government Consultation Hub in time, and is reproduced below.

---

Australia’s draft National Science and Research Priorities

Response to the Draft Recommendations

The Australian Science Communicators (ASC) commends the Government on revitalising Australia’s national science policy framework, and the consultation process adopted by the Office of the Chief Scientist and the Department of Industry, Science and Resources in the production of this draft and appreciate the opportunity to provide comment at this stage. We additionally thank Dr Cathy Foley and the Office of the Chief Scientist for the invitation to contribute to one of the March roundtables informing this document.

We further recognise and applaud the overarching frame with which Indigenous knowledge and knowledge systems have been adapted to the whole document and the priorities, and the clear emphasis the consultation process has put on engaging with communities on Country.

This submission from the Australian Science Communicators emphasises the pivotal role of science communication and the critical need for more communications research to enable and shape Australia’s response to the four identified priorities outlined in the draft. We highlight the impact that increased and formalised support for science communication professionals and research would have in the sector. We argue that a lens of community dialogue and communication is essential for us to achieve a scientifically engaged and prosperous society.

The overlap of the priorities and objectives

The figure on page 8 is a graphic that depicts the whole strategic priorities outlined throughout the document. It gives an overview of the four priorities, and the specific areas of focus intended to achieve progress across them.

We feel that the graphic clarifies a key gap in the priorities of not having centred a specific reference or focus on community engagement with the scientific endeavour.

This engagement with the sciences is crucial for the continued social licence to conduct groundbreaking research and fully exploit the new technologies and advances this research offers us.

It is quality communication (and the support of the research and education that supports this practice) through which we achieve the positive engagement with and support of ethical science and research.

The ASC therefore recommends that the priorities either takes an approach to science communication research and practice as being a critical enabler for all the objectives, or explicitly notes where that research is most effectively applied.

Priority 4: Building a stronger, more resilient nation

We specifically make note of recommendation 4, and applaud the focus on concerns around misinformation and disinformation conveyed by the ASC co-Presidents in their roundtable contribution earlier this year. We further acknowledge the link to democratic resilience referenced in the first aim in this priority, another aspect highlighted by our co-Presidents.

Disappointingly though, we note that while this priority seems to start to engage with the challenges posed to the Australian sector and economy, it fails to engage with the opportunities or pathways to address these issues.

As such the ASC recommends:

1. Critical research in understanding mis- and disinformation to be expanded to include science communication tools and methods to support disengaging with mis- and disinformation.
   1. Science communication research has for years reviewed the cognitive, social and language tricks used to entice people to engage with misinformation.
   2. But we need to know more than just how or why people engage with communities that reject ideas they don’t like, and support ideas that make them feel comfortable.
   3. We need to understand the full pathway for people as they are exposed to, are influenced by, engage with, and eventually dismiss misconceptions or falsehoods.
   4. Importantly, we also need to dedicate focus to understanding how best to support those leaving family-like communities built on disinformation. What support do they need while they navigate a phase of their life when they are extremely vulnerable to more extreme ideologies or ideas? (This has obvious benefits in national security contexts also.)
   5. The critical research in the social science of the whole gamut of behaviour change is essential to fully support this goal of a stronger and more resilient nation.
2. Priority 4 incorporate specific acknowledgement of the role of science communication expertise in achieving the desired aims
   1. Aim one states: Australian science and research will support communities to develop the skills, tools and systems that can strengthen Australia’s democratic resilience and enhance trust.
   2. This aim is thoroughly seated in the realm of quality science communication and engagement, though the rest of the discussion avoids referencing this as being important or even a factor. In fact, the word communication is not included once in the entire draft.
   3. While the aim remains focused solely on science supporting communities (ignoring the role of communication), this priority continues to diminish the role of professional and expert science communicators and delays the development of the evidence base required to best support their work.
3. Critical research also expanded to include the development of the evidence base in quality science communication and engagement.
   1. An ongoing issue with the science communication community is the lack of connection between science communication research and practice. Practitioners often make decisions based on past experience, with little high quality evaluation methodologies or reports available for public consumption.
   2. While there’s broad interest in ‘best practice’, the research sector in science communication is thoroughly under-resourced to be able to provide adequate analysis or recommendations for Australian practice within the Australian context. With the exception of ANU and UWA, very few universities have been able to justify science communication research positions, and those who have science communicators in academic staff positions are often so overwhelmed with undergraduate first-year generalist teaching that they have zero capacity for practice or research.
   3. Best practice science communication needs to be based on findings from high quality research, but there typically isn’t the funding or resources available for collaborations between researchers and practitioners.
   4. Science communication research, conducted alongside practitioners, is essential to continue to improve best-practice, with clear benefits of increased community resilience.

Priority 2: Supporting healthy and thriving communities

Similar to our critique of Priority 4, we argue that community engagement is inappropriately absent from the discussion around this priority centred on community social wellbeing.

Australians are not making health decisions absent of influence or direction. Aim two starts to highlight the need to understand the diverse and unique social and environmental drivers of health and wellbeing in communities. This is an aspirational goal, but falls short of considering the gaps in the evidence-base for those engaging communities in health advice.

The ASC highlights the enabling function science communication research and practice in health communications and community building would have in addressing these areas.

Priority 1: Ensuring a net zero future and protecting Australia’s biodiversity

While we will leave comment on the scientific feasibility or appropriateness of having a goal focused on supporting a pathway to net zero to the relevant scientific experts, the ASC does want to highlight the lacklustre message that this aspiration sends to Australians and our international partners.

Other technologically advanced countries such as Germany, Denmark, Great Britain and the USA are already focusing substantial climate investment into negative emissions technologies, and the European Climate Act stipulates net negative emissions after 2050.

The draft currently conveys the critical research needed to engage with carbon emissions and this is crucial, but the message conveyed by not more thoroughly emphasising the need for negative emission technologies further reaffirms Australia’s place as following the rest of the world in our climate responsibilities and actions. The ASC therefore recommends that the language of Priority 1 more thoroughly emphasises alignment with the global aspiration for negative emissions, rather than net zero.

About the Australian Science Communicators

The Australian Science Communicators (ASC) is the peak membership body representing the interests of those who work in, study, teach and have an interest in the field of science communication. The Australian Science Communicators has been bringing science communicators together for 30 years.

The Pathway to Diversity in STEM Review will recommend how the Australian Government can support change so that people can access and feel they belong within STEM education, careers and industries.

On 8 September, the following response to the draft recommendations was submitted. The submission will be publicly viewable on the Government Consultation Hub in time, and is reproduced in full below.

---

Pathway to Diversity in STEM

Response to the Review Draft Recommendations

The Australian Science Communicators (ASC) commends the Diversity in STEM consultation process and appreciates the opportunity to provide comment at this stage.

This submission emphasises the pivotal role of science communication professionals in delivering and shaping the future aspirations for diversity in STEM, and the impact that increased and formalised support for science communication professionals would have in the sector.

The need for quality science communication

Science communication plays an important role in modern democratic society, forming links between scientific researchers and the wider community. Science communicators facilitate and encourage dialogue between scientists, policymakers, educators and citizens. Equipped to understand the science that affects them in everyday life, people are empowered to make informed decisions about their future.

Effective science communication plays a key role in reducing these barriers to access by ensuring that educational opportunities, research initiatives, and potential collaborations are shared widely and in a way that avoids misconception and bias. Across the profession there is specific expertise in reaching and engaging people who are at high risk of disengaging or with access barriers.

It is the view of the ASC that effective science communication plays a crucial and yet underappreciated role in facilitating the implementation of the recommendations of the Pathway to Diversity in STEM Draft Review. As such, we recommend the final Pathway Recommendations to:

1. Acknowledge and call for adequate support and resources for professional science communicators within the STEM sector
   1. Many universities, government agencies and research institutions employ some form of marketing, communications or promotion staff, whose role it is to translate complex technical information and communicate it in a way that different audiences and stakeholders can understand. This is called science communication.
   2. However, these science communicators are typically under-resourced and required to be a one-stop-shop for all external communication needs. Often they are required to be a university marketer first and foremost.
   3. The skills and knowledge required to take complex information and share it in ways that are relevant to policy-makers, other institutions, educators, children, and the wider community are not to be taken for granted, and should be recognised as professional skills of science communicators.
   4. In the same way that scientific researchers bring skills and knowledge to their fields of expertise, so do those who communicate science.
   5. With this formalised and acknowledged role, science communicators would be able to contribute more thoroughly to the intent behind the Pathway to Diversity.
2. Demonstrate the value of diversity of thought, especially among research leaders at government organisations and institutes
   1. We argue point 4b doesn’t go far enough to demonstrate the importance of utilising trained and experienced science communicators. 4b references the media and entertainment industry to work with industry and researchers to celebrate diversity in STEM.
   2. Informal science learning organisations, including museums, zoos, aquaria and science centres play a crucial role in celebrating diversity, as well as science journalists, and media and entertainment professionals.
   3. Representations of scientists and science as showcased in informal science learning organisations are important for visitors to see the range of ways science is done, the people involved, the importance of collaboration and showcasing that there is no singular way of being a scientist.
3. Address the issue of Early- and Mid-Career Researchers (EMCRs) being dissuaded from participating in community engagement and outreach activities
   1. Scientists and researchers participating in outreach and community engagement activities is an important component of science communication. It allows non-scientists to not only meet with scientists, allowing opportunities for discussions, debates, and common understanding, but creates opportunities for children and young people to meet and see scientists as role models for future career aspirations.
   2. However, many EMCRs are typically dissuaded from participating in outreach activities.
   3. Supervisors, with their mentee’s interest at heart, will often provide counsel that outreach is a ‘waste of time’ as only core research and publications are considered important for career stability and progression.
   4. Those who are disadvantaged in the system are even more likely to be encouraged to ‘focus on their research’, or alternatively, are overwhelmed with requests to be the diverse person at an event.
   5. If ‘allowed’ to participate, EMCRs are typically unpaid for their efforts, or required to conduct outreach in their spare time. Further, few university panels account outreach activities as valuable when considering individuals for promotion.
   6. This trend is harming the opportunities for EMCRs, and especially those with additional barriers to promotion or success, from actively participating in science communication and the goals of the Pathway to Diversity purpose.
   7. In addition, it further reinforces the poor value perception that science communication and that it is not a professional expertise.
4. Adequately fund the continued development of the evidence base in science communication to address diversity access issues
   1. An ongoing issue with the science communication community is the lack of connection between science communication research and practice. Practitioners often make decisions based on past experience, with little high quality evaluation methodologies or reports available for public consumption.
   2. While there’s broad interest in ‘best practice’, the research sector in science communication is thoroughly under-resourced to be able to provide adequate analysis or recommendations for Australian practice. With the exception of ANU (with Australian Federal investment), very few universities have been able to justify science communication research positions, and those who have science communicators in academic staff positions are often so overwhelmed with undergraduate teaching that they have zero capacity for practice or research.
   3. While research funding is linked to undergraduate or international student numbers, science communication will continue to be undervalued in the university sector.
   4. Best practice science communication needs to be based on findings from high quality research, but there typically isn’t the funding or resources available for collaborations between researchers and practitioners.
   5. We recommend funding to be allocated to science communication research conducted alongside practitioners, to continue to improve best-practice, with clear benefits of increased accessibility.

With these considerations, we support the Pathway and look forward to being key partners in its implementation.

About the Australian Science Communicators

The Australian Science Communicators (ASC) is the peak membership body representing the interests of those who work in, study, teach and have an interest in the field of science communication. The Australian Science Communicators has been bringing science communicators together for 30 years.

The Accord Interim Report outlines a vision for the future of Australia’s higher education system. The Report reflects high-quality, thoughtful submissions and extensive engagement with a wide range of stakeholders. It contains five recommendations for priority action and raises issues for further discussion to inform the Review’s Final Report.

The Australian Science Communicators made a submission in reaction to the Accord process, specifically recognising the gap in support for formalised science communication training and professional impact.

The response was submitted on Friday 1 September and is reproduced below in full.

---

Australian Universities Accord

Response to the Accord Interim Report

The Australian Science Communicators (ASC) commends the Universities Accord consultation process and appreciate the opportunity to provide comment at this stage.

This submission emphasises the pivotal role of science communication professionals in enhancing the impact and public perception of university research, and stresses the need for more ambitious aims for the Universities Accord.

The need for quality science communication

We consider that the need for quality science communication to support and enhance Australia’s higher education system has not been adequately addressed in the Interim Report or the sector more broadly.

Science communicators being limited almost exclusively to the role of ‘science PR’ in many universities thoroughly ignores the obligation on the part of universities to make public research appropriately and accurately accessible to those who fund it, benefit from it, and use it.

The Business Council of Australia’s Seize the Moment report notes that “nine in ten Australians agree that spending on research and development is vital to give us a competitive edge”, and yet many are unaware of the true impact of this R&D investment. This clearly shows the current shortfall in communicating the research effort and its impact.

It is our view that effective science communication plays a crucial and yet underappreciated role in facilitating the implementation of the recommendations of the Australian Government’s Australian Universities Accord Interim Report by:

1. Providing universities with evidence-based practice in engaging communities, policy-makers and stakeholders
   1. Just as university researchers are valued and respected for their high-quality work and research output, similar emphasis is needed for trained professionals and academics whose expertise is in the translation and transformation of technical details of contemporary research into messages that different stakeholders can access: science communicators.
   2. It is essential that communication professionals are considered at the beginning stages of the research process (e.g. during grant development), so adequate funds can be allocated for their time and expertise, and that funding models incorporate provision for communication activities.
   3. Trained science communicators can assist with reporting to funders, research participants and local communities, strengthening the link between research and society.
2. Linking research to impact
   1. Science communication links academia and the Australian people, including policymakers, industry stakeholders, and the wider community.
   2. Of note, there is specific expertise developed within the field in how best to engage hard to reach audiences.
   3. Effective science communication is vital to make complex research findings accessible and understandable, enabling stakeholders to grasp the potential implications and applications of research outcomes.
3. Promoting collaboration
   1. Science communication promotes integration within the tertiary system and collaboration between universities, industry, and government.
   2. Effective communication channels share information about significant research problems and capabilities, helping stakeholders identify mutual interest and collaboration opportunities.
4. Public engagement
   1. Quality science communication helps universities connect with the public, enhancing research awareness.
   2. This fosters a sense of relevance and opens doors for public support and funding opportunities.
   3. By promoting a better understanding of the importance of research, science communication can also help build trust between universities, government, industry, and the general public.
5. Facilitating policy implementation
   1. Clear communication strategies are crucial for effective policy implementation and public buy in.
   2. Stakeholders need to grasp how research outcomes integrate into policies to effect the desired shifts in higher education.
   3. Science communication can facilitate this understanding and encourage support for evidence-based policy decisions.
6. Addressing equity and access
   1. The commitment to access for everyone, as mentioned in the report, requires communication efforts to reach diverse audiences.
   2. Effective science communication can play a role in reducing barriers to access by ensuring that information about educational opportunities, research initiatives, and potential collaborations is shared widely and in a way that is accessible to individuals from various backgrounds and communities.

As such, we implore the Accord vision to acknowledge and build in adequate support and resources for roles such as that of the science communicator professional within the higher education sector, along with the researchers who inform their practice.

The ASC has a specific focus on communication in the sciences. While there are specific challenges faced by ASC members, we expect that our recommendations would readily be applied across other fields including the humanities, arts, economics and business, for example. It is the view of the ASC that the Universities Accords should appropriately acknowledge and include the role of these professionals in any forward-looking vision.

A missed opportunity

Further, the ASC adds our voice to others calling for the Accord process to be more ambitious. We specifically echo the statement from Science & Technology Australia in their April submission and their submission in response to this Interim Report:

“To avert a decline in Australian living standards in the next decade, we must use the Universities Accord to make a ‘once-in-a-generation investment in Australia itself.’ At its heart, the Accord should state a bold ambition to ramp up our national investment in R&D and develop the specialised, STEM-skilled workforce we need to control our future.”

Science Technology Australia

Other bodies have provided submissions on STEM-research, social science and R&D investment shortfalls, and we add our voice to their concerns. In light of the ARC’s recent report highlighting the 331% economic returns to Australia from research investment, failing to recommend a more radical review of university sector funding would be hard to justify.

About the Australian Science Communicators

The Australian Science Communicators (ASC) is the peak membership body representing the interests of those who work in, study, teach and have an interest in the field of science communication. The Australian Science Communicators has been bringing science communicators together for 30 years.