Science communication should be more than the dissemination of results to the public; it should also flow in the other direction, with members of the public able to communicate their priorities to scientists and those who fund them. But how? (…) – by Cath Ennis, The Guardian, 23 October 2013
La Life’s insight:
Indeed – science communication should only secondarily be about results. It should be about engagement in the question of knowledge creation and knowledge validation.
Engagement through the question of selection of knowledge discovery, which questions we want answers to. That is very interesting.
I haven’t read the article yet 🙂
from A quoi sert la connaissance ? What is knowledge for? | Scoop.it http://www.scoop.it/t/a-quoi-sert-la-connaissance-what-is-knowledge-for/p/4011868012/2013/11/29/how-can-non-scientists-influence-the-course-of-scientific-research