Scientists at U.S. land-grant universities take different approaches to engaging with the public, ranging from remaining strictly neutral to openly advocating for the public good, according to a new study from the University of Florida Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences (UF/IFAS).

Three Philosophical Camps

The study, led by researchers at the UF/IFAS Department of Agricultural Education and Communication (AEC), found that the surveyed scientists generally fall into three distinct philosophical camps: those who prioritize objectivity even if it limits their public impact, those who use their research to promote specific public goods, and those who attempt to balance both objectives.

Despite these operational differences, there is overwhelming consensus on the necessity of public outreach. When asked if today’s political climate requires scientists to communicate with the public more or less, 94% of participants stated that more engagement is necessary.

Objectivity and Public Impact

The study identified three specific “cultures of thought” among the participants: Arbiters, who place strict objectivity above all else; Advocates, who actively seek to serve a specific public interest; and Brokers, who find ways to engage with social values but do so in a highly cautious manner.

The findings help explain why the scientific community rarely speaks with a single, unified voice on matters of public concern. It also highlights the complexities journalists, policymakers, and citizens face when interpreting scientific advice.

Original reporting: Tampa Free Press — read the source article.