We encourage you to republish this article online and in print, it’s free under our creative commons attribution license, but please follow some simple guidelines:
  1. You have to credit our authors.
  2. You have to credit SciDev.Net — where possible include our logo with a link back to the original article.
  3. You can simply run the first few lines of the article and then add: “Read the full article on SciDev.Net” containing a link back to the original article.
  4. If you want to also take images published in this story you will need to confirm with the original source if you're licensed to use them.
  5. The easiest way to get the article on your site is to embed the code below.
For more information view our media page and republishing guidelines.

The full article is available here as HTML.

Press Ctrl-C to copy

The number of degree programmes in science communication is growing, and the rudiments of a professional code of conduct were published last year in the United Kingdom.

But, in a letter to Nature, Steve Fuller argues that current guidelines reduce science communication to a one-way transmission of information. More ambitious professional guidelines, he says, should involve an element of feedback, whether as letters to the editor, Internet chat rooms or interactive museum exhibits.

He calls for full-time science communicators to convene formally to draft professional codes of conduct, with the aim of not simply encouraging people to trust science, but making them feel part of it.

Reference: Nature 416, 475 (2002)

Link to full text