Ireland had produced many distinguished scientists but, historically, a dominant church had not been supportive of science, a biochemistry conference at UCC was told yesterday.
"In a country with a strong Roman Catholic tradition, there is bound to be conflict when so much of biochemistry is to do with creation, correction or even withholding of life itself," Prof Paul Engel of UCD's Department of Biochemistry told the international conference.
During a symposium on the promotion of biochemistry in the public domain, Prof Engel said the view that scientists ought to know by merely looking at their books displayed "deep ignorance of the infinite and ongoing nature of scientific investigation".
For their part, scientists had to be able to communicate effectively with the public and policymakers because science was increasingly expensive. Equally, science was throwing up ethical and environmental issues, prompting an emotive public to ask if this was the right thing to be doing.
Scientists had to abandon the use of mumbo-jumbo language including - his pet hate - the widespread use of acronyms, Prof Engel said. He noted the ease with which young researchers studiously acquired "the language of incomprehensibility; so much so they don't need to tell one another what a molecule is".
The popular media, such as the tabloid press and television, had shown an ability to capture effectively the work of scientists, according to Dr Brian Trench of DCU. Stories about antioxidants and phenols could be found in the Sun with all the essential details.
These reports contrasted with the formalistic "Scientists have discovered that . . ." style of reporting in "serious newspapers" such as The Irish Times. Those campaigning for greater public understanding of science could not ignore the importance of communication in the popular market, otherwise their movement would prove to be "irredeemably elitist". The trouble with scientists, said Dr William Reville of UCC, an Irish Times columnist, went beyond inability to explain their work in terms easily grasped by the lay person. The pressure of scholarly life could "desiccate the personality".
Many scientists were shy of the media, and their unemotional, stylised reporting of research in scientific papers tended to spill over into their deliberations with the public. All this created a sense of "otherness" surrounding scientists, he said. But this could be overcome with various approaches, particularly by appealing to everyone's natural curiosity.
Prof Engel told a meeting of the Biochemical Society that many of the great scientific controversies, such as those surrounding AIDS, BSE and GM foods, had led the public to view scientists as being "rather naughty and negligent".
With BSE, for example, people were not happy with scientists saying: "We don't know exactly what a prion is", the rogue protein believed to be responsible for mad cow disease.
Scientists were again called the bad guys when it came to GM foods, as they did not have all the answers.
