Conexiant
Login
  • The Analytical Scientist
  • The Cannabis Scientist
  • The Medicine Maker
  • The Ophthalmologist
  • The Pathologist
  • The Traditional Scientist
The Analytical Scientist
  • Explore

    Explore

    • Latest
    • News & Research
    • Trends & Challenges
    • Keynote Interviews
    • Opinion & Personal Narratives
    • Product Profiles
    • App Notes

    Featured Topics

    • Mass Spectrometry
    • Chromatography
    • Spectroscopy

    Issues

    • Latest Issue
    • Archive
  • Topics

    Techniques & Tools

    • Mass Spectrometry
    • Chromatography
    • Spectroscopy
    • Microscopy
    • Sensors
    • Data & AI

    • View All Topics

    Applications & Fields

    • Clinical
    • Environmental
    • Food, Beverage & Agriculture
    • Pharma & Biopharma
    • Omics
    • Forensics
  • People & Profiles

    People & Profiles

    • Power List
    • Voices in the Community
    • Sitting Down With
    • Authors & Contributors
  • Business & Education

    Business & Education

    • Innovation
    • Business & Entrepreneurship
    • Career Pathways
  • Events
    • Live Events
    • Webinars
  • Multimedia
    • Video
Subscribe
Subscribe

False

The Analytical Scientist / Issues / 2019 / Dec / A Call to Communicate
Career Pathways

A Call to Communicate

Public understanding of chemistry is lacking – what does this mean for scientists?

By Matt Hallam 12/13/2019 1 min read

Share

Chemists exist in bubbles, so to speak. We are educated among science enthusiasts, move into workplaces filled with graduates, and attend conferences that keep us connected with analytical minds around the world.

Outside the walls of our organizations, however, such discussion is scarce. Even the term “chemical” still incites fear among the public – a phenomenon branded “chemophobia” in a recent paper from Nature Chemistry. This phrase seems rather apt; 39 percent of 5,631 respondents surveyed in the same paper stated they “would like to live in a world where chemical substances don’t exist” (1). I don’t know about you, but the empty vacuum of space isn’t the utopia I pine for.

A staggering 82 percent of the same sample was also unaware that synthetic sodium chloride and sea salt share the same chemical structure. Caught between the limited understanding of many citizens and the exponentially growing complexity of the field (see our big data feature), it would be easy to give up entirely on communicating our research to the public. Why should we go the extra mile?

For one thing, public perception shapes political discourse and impacts the funding allocated to research. What’s more, advances in research are bringing analytical power closer to public hands (as described by Michel Nielen in our October issue); as “citizen scientists” begin acquiring data from everyday settings, a rudimentary scientific knowledge could go a long way in preventing the spread of misinformation.

Communication and education are our greatest assets on this front. Many medical journals now request “lay summaries” alongside submitted manuscripts, which dispense key clinical data in an accessible fashion. While such summaries might not be so suited to our field, I believe the movement could provide some much-needed inspiration. Efforts to communicate our research in a layman-friendly format would – at minimum – increase public awareness as to the existence and importance of analytical chemistry.

Education is a recurring theme in our December issue, with In My View articles from Victoria Samanidou and Michelle Misselwitz on the benefits of basic etymological and methodological insight, respectively. As usual, however, these articles detail efforts aimed at the practicing chemist.

Bringing analytical chemistry to the masses is a responsibility we should all bear. In time, these altered views could inspire the next pioneer in our field, or help drive political will to support scientific endeavors. So, what are we waiting for? The call to communicate is clear, and those heeding it could change the course of science (and history!) for the better. 

Newsletters

Receive the latest analytical science news, personalities, education, and career development – weekly to your inbox.

Newsletter Signup Image

References

  1. M Siegrist & A Bearth, “Chemophobia in Europe and reasons for biased risk perceptions”, Nat Chem [Epub ahead of print] (2019). DOI: 10.1038/s41557-019-0377-8

About the Author(s)

Matt Hallam

I've always wanted a job that fosters creativity - even when I worked on the assembly line in a fish factory. Outside work, I satisfy this need by writing questionable fiction. The venture into science writing was an unexpected departure from this fiction, but I'm truly grateful for the opportunity to combine my creative side with my scientific mind as Editor of The Analytical Scientist.

More Articles by Matt Hallam

False

Advertisement

Recommended

False

False

The Analytical Scientist
Subscribe

About

  • About Us
  • Work at Conexiant Europe
  • Terms and Conditions
  • Privacy Policy
  • Advertise With Us
  • Contact Us

Copyright © 2025 Texere Publishing Limited (trading as Conexiant), with registered number 08113419 whose registered office is at Booths No. 1, Booths Park, Chelford Road, Knutsford, England, WA16 8GS.