1985
What differentiates science communication from the broader institution of science, is its explicit normative stance that scientific knowledge should be passed directly from scientists to the public since a public with an enhanced understanding of science can produce an array of benefits for science, society, and citizens. This stance can formally be traced to the Bodmer Report, the foundational policy of modern science communication, which proposes that scientific knowledge should be shared with the general public since “... better public understanding of science can be a major element in promoting national prosperity, in raising the quality of public and private decision-making and in enriching the life of the individual”.
Prior to this report, science communication was more so interested in the boundary work that could delineate science from the public and from non-science, while also demonstrating its essential function in society and the need for public funds. After this report though, it was tasked with trying to win back the support of the public through enhanced public scientific literacy. Here we see the establishment of the roots of the now infamous “deficit model” which claims that the public is deficient in their scientific knowledge; a deficiency which scientists need to fill. This was to be accomplished through the one-way communication of scientific facts, moving from the the keepers of knowledge (scientists), through the media and educational system (the science communicators), to fill a wanting public. This foundational text has provided academics with a benchmark for the idealized form of science communication, against which activities and effects can be tested. Much of science communication scholarship exists as a critique of this report, however, much of science communication practice still exists as its recurrent manifestation.
Reference:
Royal Society, The. (1985). The Bodmer Report: the Public Understanding of Science. London.