Without this 360-degree view of climate science, we are likely to keep breeding narrow-minded climate communicators
Photo for representation: iStock The journal Nature recently carried a nice article on what experts suggest for people looking for meaning in one’s career in science. It is important to note that science here is not to be interpreted as just Science, technology, engineering and mathematics but also social sciences. The experts quoted include social scientists, philosophers, economists, including Nobel laureate Abhijit Banerjee.
The story outlined six pathways: Make what you love benefit the world, choose a pressing problem, be prepared to work behind the scenes, do your homework and follow the data, keep sight of the big picture and, finally, remember that changing the world is difficult. Working behind the scenes here refers to working on policy and governance issues.
As a teacher, I myself have often advised youngsters to try and figure out what they would love to do but always caution them that it is not always easy to find. In our assembly line education system, we don’t get to explore all the options. This means, working hard and doing our best in anything may often lead to the discovery that what we do may be just the thing we love.
My own science career was forced upon me after losing a job in the US and with it, the funding for the PhD research that was nearly complete. After trying to find another job, I ended up restarting a PhD at another university in a new topic. Even though I was in mechanical engineering, I was offered a fellowship to work on solving an ocean modeling problem.
This serendipitous entry into climate science led me to NASA after my PhD in mechanical engineering. Research experience at NASA made me realise that I was happy enough to give up a much higher salary in the industry and remain in research. I slowly moved from computational fluid dynamics into more and more climate research, and in hindsight, it has been the best decision of my life. Of course, I am much poorer than I would be if I had chosen to work in the industry instead.
Abhijit Banerjee also writes about the happy accidents in his life that led him to the Nobel prize. He states that he is thus hesitant to give specific advice on what one should do in pursuing research. One must build a career but leave plenty of room for random walks and serendipities. The only constant is hard work no matter what one is pursuing.
I have discovered that the other aspect of seeking a rewarding career is playing out very differently in climate science now. It is much more about seeking rewards and awards than a rewarding career.
Climate science seems to induce a saviour complex in many young researchers. I get a lot of requests for guidance on how to become a climate communicator. I consider myself a climate educator and not a climate communicator. I came to this realisation after learning what communication is supposed to be all about.
Communication experts always highlight the importance of credibility and legitimacy of the messenger and salience of the message. In this so-called post-expert era, one can create a brand name or credibility and legitimacy by being active on social media or by becoming a member of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Even though IPCC only synthesises published science and picks members for balancing geographical and gender representations, IPCC membership imparts instant credibility in the media.
Communication is supposed to be about just raising awareness, or getting people to act on an issue, or to get people to actually change their behaviour. Most climate communicators do not seem to have a clear idea of what their goal is. We are often preaching to the choir and the actual impacts on action or behioural change are impossible to quantify even for the best of the climate communicators.
What also goes missing is the fact that climate change is hardly a natural science problem anymore. Managing the risks and impacts and building resilience as well as well as the actions needed to stay on track to sustainable development are all largely social science, economic and political problems.
Without this 360-degree view of climate science, we are likely to keep breeding narrow-minded climate communicators who lose sight of what they even are paid to do. We are not really paid to communicate but we are free to do that on our own time. If we are remiss on delivering what is actually needed for climate decisions and actions, or the solutions that can actually save the world, then we will simply keep talking about a crisis that seems to have no impact on our own lifestyles.
The best thing we can do is to dedicate our work hours to providing climate forecast products, climate services and climate solutions. We must always be ready with the best scientific advice when societies and governments want it or need it. We need to be true to ourselves when we look in the mirror when it comes to judging ourselves honestly about our credibility, legitimacy and salience.
We are a voice to you; you have been a support to us. Together we build journalism that is independent, credible and fearless. You can further help us by making a donation. This will mean a lot for our ability to bring you news, perspectives and analysis from the ground so that we can make change together.
.png)
Comments are moderated and will be published only after the site moderator’s approval. Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name. Selected comments may also be used in the ‘Letters’ section of the Down To Earth print edition.