Final Panel Reimagines Science Communication as Dialogue, Not Dissemination
Conclave’s closing session debates why minds remember Chernobyl but forget fertilizer plant explosions, argues communication must be embedded in R&D not added as afterthought, and questions whether current frameworks systematically exclude legitimate indigenous knowledge systems, Rashmi Kumari of Neo Science Hub, reports.
“Can you name the Pandavas?” Dr. B. Venkataraman, Former Director of Indira Gandhi Centre for Atomic Research, asked the audience at Session IV of the National Conclave on “Lab to Society: Role of Science Communication in Building Viksit Bharat @ 2047” at the B.M. Birla Science Centre on Thursday evening. Hands shot up. “Very good. Now can you name the Kauravas?”
Silence. Uncomfortable laughter. Despite the epic featuring 100 Kauravas, the audience could name only the five Pandavas.
“Why are we not able to name them? Because there are many. Mind remembers only things which are very unique, which are different,” Dr. Venkataraman explained, pivoting to his actual subject: nuclear energy communication. “Now, when you talk of nuclear, what accidents are you remembering?”
The responses came quickly: Chernobyl. Fukushima. Someone mentioned Three Mile Island.
“Can you think of any other accident in the nuclear field? No. These things are very precious in your memory. But hundreds of accidents happened in other power plants, in fertilizer plants—are they in your memory? Why are we not remembering that? Because mind remembers what is unique.”
His diagnosis cut to the core challenge: “When we talk of nuclear today, nuclear doesn’t face a science gap. It faces a trust gap among society, among the public.”
The final panel discussion, titled “Discovery to Dialogue: Reimagining Science Communication for a Sustainable Future,” brought together diverse perspectives challenging comfortable assumptions about what science communication should accomplish, how it should function, and whose knowledge it should recognize.
Chaired by Dr. Ch. Mohan Rao, Chairman of the Scientific Advisory Council of ASTC, Former Director of CSIR-CCMB, and Chairman of NASI-Telangana Chapter, the session featured Dr. B. Venkataraman (Former Director, Indira Gandhi Centre for Atomic Research; DAE-Homi Sethna Chair; President, Indian Society for Radiation Physics); Dr. D. Shailaja (Distinguished Scientist, CSIR Headquarters, New Delhi); Mrs. N. Aparna Rao (International Advanced Research Centre for Powder Metallurgy & New Materials, Hyderabad); Prof. Vijaya Khadar (Former Professor, ANGRAU; Distinguished Nutrition Scientist); Prof. Kirtimaan Syal (BITS Pilani-Hyderabad Campus); Naresh Nunna (Managing Editor, Neo Science Hub, Hyderabad); and science journalist Pallava Bagla (NDTV).
The X-Ray Paradox: Why Nuclear Carries Fear While Radiation Medicine Doesn’t
Dr. Venkataraman illustrated nuclear energy’s unique communication challenge through historical comparison. “When X-rays were discovered by Wilhelm Röntgen in 1895, in less than one year, its application was worldwide. No other discovery in the world has had such a profound effect on mankind than X-rays.”
The public embrace is unthinking: “You may or may not know, but when you see an X-ray and you go on with your treatment, the last thing you remember is radiation. You never think about radiation. But if you have a nuclear reactor nearby, you are afraid of it.”
The difference: “What is the basic reason? It is because of the way nuclear energy was introduced to mankind—through Hiroshima and Nagasaki. And radiation being invisible creates an inherent fear in the minds of people. And of course, the accidents.”
The Context Often Missing
Dr. Venkataraman provided statistics rarely emphasized in public discourse: “Do you know that today there are more than 400 reactors in operation worldwide? Nuclear energy contributes to 10 percent of overall global electricity. In France, it contributes more than 70 percent. In the US, it contributes to more than 50 percent. Are we aware of that fact?”
More striking: “We have had more than 18,000 reactor-years of operation without any major issues except for those accidents. Are we aware of this fact? No.”
His conclusion was self-critical: “So that is the problem. It is because we have been in an ivory tower. We have to accept the fact that we are living in an ivory tower, and we have thought that if we just dump information, people will accept it. No, that is not the way to do it.”
Nuclear as Marathon Runner
Dr. Venkataraman positioned nuclear strategically in India’s energy transition: “Today, solar and wind are considered to be the sprint runners for decarbonization and net zero achievements. Nuclear is a marathon runner which will provide the country energy security through the three-stage program over a long period.”
But communication must transform: “What we need is—like this morning there was mention about high-voltage wires, 11kV lines—that cannot be used by the public. It has to be stepped down to 230 volts so that public can use it. Science communicators would be able to link with public imagination and transform stories made in laboratories into ones that are palatable, understandable by society.”
His final prescription: “Rather than talking to the public, we should work with the public if we need to build trust in society.”
CSIR’s Multi-Modal Approach: From Plastic Roads to Vigyan Prasar
Dr. D. Shailaja from CSIR Headquarters outlined how India’s premier research organization approaches science communication across multiple channels and audiences, demonstrating that effective communication requires institutional commitment, not just individual scientist initiative.
Technology Transfer Through Context
Dr. Shailaja highlighted the plastic waste road technology as an example of communication shaping adoption: “The recent launch of our plastic waste road technology—the first such technology in the world, converting plastic waste and laying highways—is novel technology developed over five years.”
The communication evolution: “When we communicated only in technical terms, relevance was not immediately clear. But when we explained: carbon footprint is lower, lifecycle is longer, waste is being utilized, carbon credits are reduced, climate change mitigation is enabled—then public and society could appreciate how it benefits them.”
Comprehensive Institutional Infrastructure
Dr. Shailaja outlined CSIR’s systematic approach:
For Students: “We have a unit that conducts workshops to help students understand latest technology advancements.”
For Teachers: “We have extensive orientation programs for science teachers, because teachers are the actual ambassadors to students.”
Interactive Programs: “‘One Day as a Scientist’ brings students into laboratories.”
Publications and Portals: “We bring out journals and reports for common people. Vigyan Prasar is an online portal that addresses misinformation. When fake information spreads on WhatsApp, science communicators provide evidence-based responses.”
Traditional Wisdom Validation: “We validate what Ayush systems claim through evidence-based study, then share findings.”
IISF: “Indian International Science Festival brings students from different schools for competitions and engagement.”
Indians Are Rational—When Communication Works
Dr. Shailaja challenged narratives about public irrationality: “Indians are really rational. Although people talk about religious beliefs, that’s different. During COVID, India survived very well. Look at the US—people did not take vaccines, were so opposed. But we adopted cell phone technology crazily. We adopted UPI crazily.”
Her conclusion: “If the communication is right, Indians actually adopt.”
Communication as Acceleration: ARCI’s Lab-to-Market Bridge
Mrs. N. Aparna Rao from ARCI brought the practitioner’s perspective on translating research to industrial application, arguing that communication isn’t peripheral outreach but core infrastructure determining whether innovations scale.
“This conference reflects how seriously India is now taking science communication, not as an afterthought alone, but as a national capability,” she began. “I am from ARCI, a national laboratory with a mandate of translating research and transferring technology to industry.”
The Anti-Soiling Photonics Case Study
Mrs. Rao shared how communication framing determined technology adoption: “Anti-soiling photonic technology applied on solar panels—scientifically, these photonics reduce dust accumulation. But when we communicated only in technical terms, relevance was not immediately clear to industry.”
The breakthrough: “When we explained this as solution for clean energy transition, reduced maintenance, water saving, and improved energy generation, industry perspective completely changed. We supported with business opportunity analysis, development strategies, product roadmaps, and direct stakeholder engagement. Result: technology was transferred to industry.”
Her insight: “This showed us something powerful. Communication is not just dissemination—it’s acceleration.”
The Three Questions Technology Must Answer
Mrs. Rao outlined what communication must address for adoption:
- Does it solve a real problem?
- Is it scalable and cost-effective?
- What is the business case?
“This is where scientists and science communicators should work together. Scientists focus on invention and innovation, while science communicators ensure relevance and establish credibility. This partnership is no longer optional. It is essential for scaling innovation in India.”
Embedding Communication in R&D
Mrs. Rao’s most radical proposal: “Communication must be embedded early in R&D. Even as you write a proposal, ask: who is this for, why does it matter, who will use it, at what stage can they engage? It should be inclusive, multilingual, ethical, and context-sensitive—not an afterthought but a necessary companion.”
Her prescription: “Institutions should empower science communicators as part of project teams. Not separately as outreach units, but as part of the project itself. Science communication should be part of the project proposal. This way, translation becomes much faster.”
Three Shifts for Viksit Bharat 2047
Mrs. Rao outlined necessary transformations:
“First, moving from just disseminating science to engaging society and industry, so communication becomes two-way dialogue.
“Second, bringing communication much earlier in the R&D process, not as afterthought but as part of how we design and scale research.
“Third, working more closely with scientists, communicators, industry, and policymakers so trust builds naturally as technologies move from lab to market.
“If we do this, science doesn’t just advance—it connects. That connection is what makes innovation sustainable and impactful. If we can institutionalize this approach, science communication itself becomes a national asset.”
Simple Technologies, Grassroots Impact: Prof. Khadar’s Field Experience
Prof. Vijaya Khadar, Former Professor at ANGRAU and Distinguished Nutrition Scientist, brought decades of experience translating research into community-level interventions, emphasizing that scientists must take responsibility for ensuring work reaches those who need it.
“In spite of having so many national-level nutrition programs, still we are talking about malnutrition, how to improve nutrition status. This means it is a lack of communication,” she began.
When Government Programs Don’t Communicate Properly
Prof. Khadar cited a concrete example: “Government is supplying oil to poor families, but they are not consuming it. They are selling it. The reason: they need to understand they should consume it with proper foods. That communication is not happening.”
Germinated Ragi Products and Village-Level Implementation
Prof. Khadar described developing products using accessible technologies: “I developed products using fermentation, roasting, malting, germination—germinated ragi and germinated bajra products. I screened pregnant ladies, lactating mothers, and adolescent girls in tribal areas for three months. Excellent results were reported.”
When institutional channels failed—”We wanted to give it to Department of Women and Child Development programs, but they did not have budget for analysis”—Prof. Khadar found alternatives: “Through a rural development project, we gave skill training to each tribal hamlet, involving all local women. They prepare the product and distribute among themselves—simple, fast, effective, utilizing local resources.”
Equipment for Women’s Empowerment
Prof. Khadar’s innovations extended beyond food: “I identified two equipment innovations. One is a battery-operated grain mill enabling women at village level to mill their own grains for small quantities, reducing drudgery. Another is a micro-enterprise fish vending display case to reduce energy use and improve health for women fish vendors.”
The Communication Imperative
Prof. Khadar’s message was unequivocal: “Everyone should be responsible for communicating your product or results to the immediate community. Our traditional knowledge is very good. Our ethnic food samples, ethnic culture—don’t neglect traditional wisdom. Combine modern knowledge, modern technology, and transfer the message to common people of India.”
Her frustration: “Most laboratories, most universities, do a lot of work, publish papers, gain knowledge. But taking it to the field is very difficult. In spite of having so many national-level nutrition programs, still we are talking about malnutrition. This is a big question mark.”
Epistemological Colonialism: Challenging What Counts as Science
Naresh Nunna, Managing Editor of Neo Science Hub and a journalist with 35 years of experience spanning engineering, humanities, and investigative reporting, delivered perhaps the session’s most philosophically challenging intervention, questioning the very frameworks through which science communication operates.
The Tsunami That Revealed Two Knowledge Systems
Nunna opened with a provocative historical example: “December 2004. I stood among the wreckage of coastal Tamil Nadu as a reporter covering Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh’s visit to tsunami-affected regions. He emphasized the need for ‘more knowledgeable societies with modern scientific practices’ to enhance disaster preparedness.”
The irony: “While the Prime Minister’s press conference emphasized technological solutions and scientific infrastructure, another narrative remained conspicuously absent: the indigenous tribes of the Andaman Islands—the Jarawa, Onge, and Sentinelese—had survived virtually unscathed. Guided not by seismographs or early warning systems, but by ancestral knowledge of oceanic behavior, animal patterns, and atmospheric shifts, they had moved to higher ground hours before the waves struck.”
His question: “This wasn’t luck. This was knowledge—epistemologically different, yet functionally effective. Why does our framework of ‘science communication’ systematically exclude such knowledge systems from its definitional boundaries?”
Nunna drew a critical distinction: “Science is a methodology, a powerful tool for empirical investigation with defined scope and acknowledged limitations. Scientism is an ideology—the belief that scientific methodology is the only legitimate path to knowledge, dismissing all other epistemologies as inferior.”
His charge: “Current science communication often operates under scientism while claiming to champion science, conflating a useful method with metaphysical absolutism.”
The Grammar of Hierarchy
Nunna dissected the language itself: “The current bias is embedded in how we speak: ‘scientific knowledge’ versus ‘traditional knowledge.’ The grammar itself creates hierarchy. ‘Evidence-based’ versus ‘alternative.’ One is legitimate, the other needs validation. ‘Science communication’ equals translating lab findings to lay audiences. But the lab is not the only legitimate site of knowledge production.”
His credentials for making this argument: “Personally, I was an engineer—I did my B.Tech—so I respect empirical rigor, reproducibility, and quantification. I also studied humanities and journalism, so I understand how language constructs reality. Being a journalist for 35 years, I see political architecture beneath supposedly neutral discourse.”
Nunna cited examples: “Agricultural extension: chemicals promoted, traditional soil practices dismissed. Urban planning: indigenous water harvesting ignored for modern infrastructure. Science communication functions as epistemological colonialism.”
Lab AND Communities to Collective Wisdom
Nunna’s reframing was fundamental: “Lab to society needs reframing. It should be ‘lab AND communities to collective wisdom’—recognizing multiple legitimate sites of knowledge production, not unidirectional transfer from experts to ignorant masses.”
Climate Crisis Demands Epistemic Justice
His concluding argument invoked urgency: “The climate crisis demands this. Indigenous communities maintained ecological balance for millennia through holistic, reciprocal knowledge systems—not ignorance, but sophisticated understanding of humans as participants, not masters.”
Science communication’s new responsibility: “Shift from championing one knowledge system to creating platforms where epistemological dialogue occurs. This does not diminish science—it democratizes it.”
The Supportive Refinement: Traditional Knowledge IS Evidence-Based
Dr. Ch. Mohan Rao, chairing the session, offered supportive refinement of Nunna’s argument: “Traditional knowledge is also evidence-based, because, for example, in Ayurveda, many times thousands of years ago, someone tried some herb, some plant. If it works for them, they keep that. Other people use it. If it doesn’t work, they discard it. That’s how traditional knowledge evolved—tested over thousands of years.”
His conclusion: “Whether that is experimentally or statistically tested in a laboratory is a different issue. But that’s not the only way of acquiring knowledge. Both are definitely valid knowledge sources.”
The Introvert Scientist Defense
When audience questions arose about why all scientists don’t communicate their work publicly, Dr. Mohan Rao offered pragmatic observation: “Not everybody will do everything. Many scientists are almost introverts. They just do what they want to do. There are some people who refuse to communicate. Some people may only communicate—they will not do science, but they will communicate.”
His point: “So there are all types of people, and everybody is necessary. We need those people who are creative and unconnected with the public. Probably Einstein didn’t want to give public lectures. So there will be people like that, but that’s fine.”
The implication: division of labor between discovery and communication is legitimate, but institutions must ensure communication happens through dedicated professionals.
Despite approaching from different domains—nuclear physics, industrial research, nutrition science, journalism—the panelists converged on critical themes:
Dr. Venkataraman’s diagnosis that nuclear energy faces a “trust gap, not a science gap” echoed throughout. No amount of data about reactor-years overcomes fear rooted in Hiroshima, Chernobyl, and radiation’s invisibility. Trust requires working with publics, not talking at them.
Mrs. Rao’s insight that communication “is not just dissemination—it’s acceleration” challenged the add-on model. When embedded early in R&D, communication shapes how technologies are designed, validated, and scaled.
Prof. Khadar’s experience demonstrated that institutional channels aren’t the only or necessarily most effective pathways. Village-level skill training, equipment provision, and direct community engagement can succeed where formal programs fail.
Nunna’s argument that climate crisis demands epistemological democracy wasn’t merely philosophical but pragmatic. Communities that maintained ecological balance for millennia possess knowledge essential for sustainability, but current frameworks systematically exclude such knowledge.
Dr. Shailaja’s observation that Indians “adopted cell phones crazily, adopted UPI crazily” suggests public rationality, not irrationality. People adopt technologies that demonstrably solve problems they recognize, delivered through trusted channels.
The session’s title—”Discovery to Dialogue”—captured the necessary shift. For much of the twentieth century, science communication presumed a deficit model: experts possessed knowledge, publics lacked it, and communication meant filling the gap through one-way information transfer.
This model fails on multiple fronts, as the panelists demonstrated. Dialogue, by contrast, implies listening as much as explaining, engaging throughout R&D not just at deployment, acknowledging uncertainty and risks honestly, creating platforms where different knowledge systems engage as equals, and building trust through transparency and demonstrated benefit.
The Viksit Bharat 2047 Imperative
As India works toward comprehensive development by its centenary of independence, science communication transforms from peripheral outreach to central infrastructure. Technologies addressing climate change, energy security, food systems, public health, and economic development cannot achieve impact if they remain in laboratories, published in inaccessible journals, explained in incomprehensible jargon, or deployed without engaging communities who must adopt them.
But equally, sustainable development cannot proceed through epistemological colonialism that dismisses indigenous knowledge, traditional practices, and community-based observation. The Andaman tribes who survived the tsunami, traditional water harvesting systems, seed selection practices, herbal remedies—these represent sophisticated empirical knowledge deserving recognition alongside laboratory science.
The future the panelists envisioned involves scientists and communicators working as partners from project inception; institutions embedding communication capacity as core function; platforms enabling genuine dialogue between different knowledge systems; trust built through transparency and demonstrated benefit; and recognition that communication itself is knowledge work requiring professional expertise.
From discovery to dialogue represents more than semantic shift—it signals epistemological transformation recognizing that knowledge production doesn’t end in laboratories but continues through engagement, adaptation, and integration with existing knowledge systems. Only through such dialogue can science serve the sustainable, equitable, knowledge-empowered future that Viksit Bharat 2047 envisions.
**
