Scientists have a long tradition of doubling as activists and advocates for a cause. Some chose their careers with that goal in mind; many more followed research paths that led them later to think about such issues as morality, responsibility and the broader impact of their work.

At the recent forum, "Government, Society and Science; Social Responsibilities of Today's Scientists," physics graduate students and faculty members considered the murky question of what it means to be a scientist in today's society.

The July 25 panel discussion in Clark Hall, hosted by the Physics Grad Society, addressed the impact of science on society and the environment; the perception of scientists by the public and the media; and the role of government and public policy in shaping the direction of research.

Physics graduate student Mohammad Hamidian organized the event. "My personal views have been somewhat idealist in the past, where scientists do their research, and they're given all the resources they should be," he said. "But recently I feel that it's come to a point where we have to justify our existence. The question is, has it gotten to that point? Who do we justify it to? And, is it our job to justify it?"

Overall, panelists Kerry Cook, professor of earth and atmospheric sciences; Harold Van Es, professor of crop and soil sciences; Itai Cohen, assistant professor of physics; and Bruce Lewenstein, professor of science communication, agreed that the public understands more science than it did in the past.

"The public is more demanding, more critical," said Van Es. "It's a healthy process that we're continuously accountable. And scientists understand their responsibility to the public."

The speakers also agreed that the current political climate has been a blow to science. "That is the real concern: the political process. Not just the public, but politicians veering away from fact-based knowledge," said Van Es.

The shift has been particularly painful in Cook's field of climate change. Being at the forefront of global warming research, she said, has made her particularly aware how critical it can be for scientists to make themselves heard by the public ... and also how challenging.

"It's difficult to explain a very complicated, nonlinear field to the public," Cook said. "It's been an incredible uphill battle. It's very frustrating, with government systems and funding agencies not wanting to hear what we have to say.

"I mobilized," she added. "Not because I was a scientist and obligated to do it, but because I'm a citizen and needed to do it."

Still, being a scientist should carry an obligation beyond that of a nonscientist, said Lewenstein. "Scientists have to put effort into finding the best way of engaging the public. And they have to see that interaction as a fundamental part of being a scientist."

But mixed messages persist, especially for students just forging their identities in the scientific community. "Students are told they shouldn't be doing activism, they should be learning the science," said graduate student Rebecca French. "They're wondering where their place is."

It's a subjective question, said Van Es, and answers may differ for each individual. But there is a bottom line. "It's our role to generate fact-based knowledge," he said. "What's important is that we defend science."

And despite the undeniable frustrations and obstacles, said Cohen, the system is actually working reasonably well.

"This is a great country to do science in," he said. "The atmosphere is pretty good; still probably better than anyplace in the world. This is where it's at. We're trying to keep it that way for the next generation."