53
Science Communication: Balancing Accuracy with Advocacy
The very idea of objectivity in science, Arghya notes, is “often misunderstood”.
Scientific integrity, he clarifies, is “not about being emotionally detached”.
Instead, it demands being “rigorous, transparent, and honest about uncertain
ties”. Yet, facing the undeniable acceleration of “climate change and biodiversi
ty loss”, objectivity cannot imply neutrality. The data reveals “alarming trends
in species, extinctions, hydrological shifts, ecosystem collapse”. To remain
dispassionate in the face of such evidence, Arghya argues, would be “intellec
tually irresponsible” and a failure to treat these findings with the “urgency they
demand”. This ethical imperative compels a scientist to engage beyond mere
data presentation.
He asserts that the true “balancing act” for a scientist lies “between being
accurate and being heard”. Science often communicates in terms of “cau
tious probabilities”, while “policy and public awareness respond to clarity and
conviction”. This inherent tension creates a significant gap, which Arghya iden
tifies as residing “not in the science itself... but in how we frame it”. Scientists
sometimes “fail to translate complex findings into stories people can relate to,