Memorandum 11
Submission from the British Science Association
SUMMARY
1. The activities of the British Science
Association (known formally as the British Association for the
Advancement of Science) concentrate on public engagement. This
evidence therefore concentrates on the specific aspect, identified
by the Committee, of engaging the public and increasing public
confidence in science and engineering policy. It reiterates many
of the points made to the DIUS in its consultation on a Vision
for Science and Society.
2. Our vision is of a society in which science
and engineering advance with the involvement and active support
of the public. Such a society is one in which the scientific and
engineering communities, policy makers and the public share a
common and open culture of science and its applications, enabling
people from all walks of life to access science, engage with it
and feel a sense of ownership about its direction. It is this
embedded culture, we believe, which is likely to lead to increasing
public confidence in science and engineering policy.
3. Developing this culture requires people, both
scientists and non-scientists, to share views and understandings
of the benefits, opportunities, priorities and concerns about
the directions of scientific research and its applications through
technology and engineering. Though much has been done in recent
years to develop systemic and collaborative approaches to public
engagement, and the UK can be justly proud of this, barriers do
remain to creating a fully shared culture which is essential for
achievement of the vision. Face to face contact and direct discussion
is important for developing trust and for sharing and exploring
ideas in depth.
4. It is important for Government to be
clearer about when it is communicating and when it is consulting,
and within what parameters. We also offer two substantive options
for better use of public engagement in consultations, which would
be likely to lead both to more widespread public engagement and
information, and to demonstrate more clearly public input to the
policy process:
a. The deliberate and active use of significant
policy consultations as opportunities for mass public education
about the science and the associated issues.
b. The collecting of public views and ideas
from much wider and more diverse sources than those of traditional
stakeholder or structured intense deliberative processes.
5. We see a clear parallel here with the
work being carried forward in the science education sector through
the STEM Programme, and we propose the development of a Science
in Society Framework, analogous to the STEM Programme, which would
act to bring coherence to the broad field of science in society
activities, while recognising and supporting local action and
innovation. Such a framework, developed by a collaborative effort
of the organisations currently involved in science in society
activities, would lead to the developments of plans in specific
areas, which could include:
b. Dialogue and consultations
c. Science as a creative and cultural activity
CREATING AN
OPEN PUBLIC
CULTURE FOR
SCIENCE AND
ENGINEERING
6. As the Secretary of State for Innovation,
Universities and Skills said in a speech on 10th January 2008,
reflected in the Government's recent consultation document, "Our
ambition should be … a more mature relationship between the
public, the media, and scientists, where everyone understands
each other. In particular, it means the public and the media maintaining
the same healthy scepticism that they do towards other information
they consume. Not taking the scientists' conclusions for granted,
but questioning what the real implications of the evidence should
be."
7. It is a shared culture based on a more mature
relationship that should be at the centre point of thinking about
public engagement, since within such a shared culture it is more
likely that:
— scientific and technological careers
will be attractive and valued
— the scientific workforce will reflect
our diverse society
— public confidence in science and
its governance will be high
— the contributions of science and
technology will underpin shared social and environmental goals,
and in consequence economic benefits with respect to national
growth and international competitiveness will be optimised.
8. The past 20 years, punctuated and
influenced by significant events such as the publication of the
Bodmer report in 1985, the Chief Scientific Adviser's Guidelines
in 1997 and subsequently, and the House of Lords Science
and Technology Committee report in 2000, have seen an extraordinary
development in activities variously described as public understanding
of science, science communication and public engagement with science,
both in relation to policy and to wider aspects of public awareness
and involvement. The field is both increasingly extensive and
increasingly diverse, with different organisations having different
reasons or different emphases for engaging with the public.
Public knowledge, attitudes and cultures
9. The UK has a strong pro-science culture,
evidenced by survey data which shows that people overwhelmingly
appreciate what science contributes positively to society and
to our quality of life. But the public has major concerns too.
On examination these tend to revolve around specific issues, such
as GM technology, stem cells or nuclear power, and around the
governance and regulation of science and its applications. These
concerns are driven in particular by conflicting ethical positions
or values, and by the degree of trust (or the lack if it) that
people have in systems of governance and accountability. Approaches
to public engagement which seek to convince and reassure the public
on purely rational scientific grounds (and tend to characterise
the public as ignorant) without taking account of these values
and perspectives are almost certainly doomed to failure.
Scientific culture
10. The recent survey of the attitudes of scientists
towards public engagement, commissioned by the Royal Society in
2006, showed that scientists view the purpose of this activity
primarily in terms of informing the public. That is an important
role for scientists, and one which many carry out with commitment
and skill. Indeed the public themselves recognise scientists as
a prime and trusted source of information about science. However,
it is only half the picture. The public also demand that scientists
"listen more to what ordinary people think". This two-way
communication or dialogue has been emphasised since the House
of Lords Science and Society report in 2000. This requires a reflexivity
and indeed at times humility among the scientific community that
is not widespread. The ethical code is a helpful signal and mechanism
for encouraging this self-reflection. What is being asked is not
for scientists to be formally directed through public opinion,
as characterised by some, but for the scientific community to
be open to a continuous discussion of values and purposes, and
to be sensitive to those when developing avenues of research.
As with their involvement in the more didactic forms of science
communication, there are many scientists who demonstrate leadership
in this respect, and yet involvement in this wider debate and
discussion is still not seen as a fundamental part of being a
scientist. It is indeed a question of culture, and the recent
Beacons for Public Engagement initiative is aimed in particular
at addressing this.
11. Face to face contact between scientists and
the public is an important aspect of building understanding and
trust. Mass communication methods alone will not achieve this.
It is face to face contact and dialogue that underpins the work
of the British Science Association and lies at the core of our
programmes.
Political culture
12. Public trust in the governance of science,
in regulation, and the policy-making process through consultation
is critical for science's ultimate licence to operate. Here there
have been substantial positive moves, with increasing numbers
of open meetings of, for example, Research Councils and regulatory
bodies, and minutes being published on the web. The whole area
of military R&D, though, is one that remains largely closed
and outside public discussion. There are often sound reasons of
national security for this situation, but opportunities could
be sought for greater openness here too.
13. It is through consultation processes, and
the way in which the Government, regulatory and advisory bodies
are seen to respond to those, that long-term trust can be established.
Certainly the established formal processes for Government consultations
set a firm framework and perhaps there will always be some public
cynicism about Government motives and practice. To counteract
this, we believe it is important for Government to be clearer
about when it is communicating and when it is consulting, and
within what parameters. A consultation which appears, whether
rightly or wrongly, to be carried out after a decision has already
been taken, does much to create distrust in science and its governance,
regardless of what scientists do.
14. We offer two substantive options for
better use of public engagement in consultations, which we believe
would be likely to lead both to more widespread public engagement
and information, and to demonstrate more clearly public input
to the policy process:
1. The deliberate and active use of significant
policy consultations as opportunities for mass public education
about the science and the associated issues.
2. The collecting of public views and ideas from
much wider and more diverse sources than those of traditional
stakeholder or structured intense deliberative processes.
Both the consultations on GM and on energy would
have benefited hugely from such approaches, and potentially improved
their credibility significantly.
Removing barriers to culture change
15. Culture change takes time but we should
recognise what has already been achieved, which includes:
— increasing access to information
about science (eg through the media, internet and science centres)
— increasing access to opportunities to
engage directly with scientists (through the programmes of many
science-based organisations, and initiatives such as National
Science and Engineering Week and science festivals)
— signals from key funding organisations
(eg Research Councils, Wellcome Trust) that public engagement
work is important
— examples of "upstream"
engagement
— the UK Resource Centre and its championing
of aspects of diversity
— Beacons for Public Engagement, as
means of encouraging culture change in the HE sector
— the Sciencewise Expert Resource Centre
with its emphasis on the culture of policy-makers
All these developments, and more, create a positive
platform for further change and we now need to embed the thinking
behind these activities.
Towards a strategy
16. We see a clear parallel here with the
work being carried forward in the science education sector through
the STEM Programme. We therefore propose the development of a
Science in Society Framework, analogous to and contiguous with
the STEM Programme, which would act to bring coherence to the
broad field of Science in Society activities, while recognising
and supporting local action and innovation. The group of organisations
which met twice, convened by the British Science Association,
during the consultation on the Vision for Science and Society
could form the basis of a wider non-exclusive collaborative In
working together we recognise that, although the Government can
set some strategic parameters and provide resources and support,
much of the required work called for is best achieved through
supporting and building on the collaborative activities of existing
organisations.
17. The suggestions below are the result of initial
discussions and simply form a starting point for further work.
The development of a Science in Society Framework might lead to
several work streams:
This work stream would look at the training
and development needs of the sector (scientists and others involved
in science communication) against current provision, and a framework
for continuing professional development. It would address the
associated reward and recognition structures, and for example
the question of embedding of these in the Research Excellence
Framework. It would cover education and development from age 18,
considering for example the recommendation that all science/engineering
students in Higher Education be exposed to the wider aspects of
communication, ethics and society in relation to science and engineering.
— Dialogue and consultations
"Dialogue" is a much used concept
but hides many assumptions and purposes. This work stream would
seek to bring coherence and clarity to dialogue activities, whether
carried out for normative purposes or for instrumental ones such
as policy consultation and development. Other corresponding work
streams might be developed for common areas of activity such as
science outreach (with its overlap to the STEM Programme) or science
press and PR activities.
— Science as a creative and cultural
activity
Much of the rhetoric and drive for science policy
centres on economic arguments. Though these arguments are powerful
and important, they risk characterising science as a purely utilitarian
pursuit. The intrinsic creativity of scientists and engineers,
and the embedding of science in our culture, become invisible.
Science and engineering are intensely human activities, contributing
towards understanding our world and addressing many of its severe
problems. Highlighting these dimensions is likely to attract many
more people to study science and participate in scientific activities.
Yet the current discourse equates the arts with creativity and
culture, not the sciences. The Olympics 2012 is currently
a missed opportunity. Despite considerable efforts, no significant
science dimension is visible in the cultural programme. The British
Science Association experienced similar challenges when taking
the Festival of Science to Liverpool as part of the Capital of
Culture celebrations. There is a need for joint actions between
DIUS and DCMS on science as a creative and cultural enterprise.
The measurement of impact is a major challenge
in this area, as it is in many aspects of social activity. The
existing work by the Research Councils on economic impact, to
take just one aspect, illustrates the difficulties. This work
stream should take a pragmatic and realistic approach, recognising
that programme evaluation well established in many places but
overall societal impact is extremely difficult to define and measure
in any causal manner. A more narrative evaluation, that examines
what people feel as well as what they know and do, may be a way
forward, in conjunction with quantitative representative surveys.
— Building on existing frameworks
We should recognise, celebrate and build on
the many existing mechanisms that help bring coherence to the
different aspects of this work, only developing new ones if there
are clearly identified gaps from the creation of an overall Science
in Society Framework. In effect, this is a cross-cutting theme
which would be incorporated into all other work streams. Our existing
mechanisms at a national level include, and there are undoubtedly
others: Beacons for Public Engagement; ECSITE UK; National Science
and Engineering Week; Science Festivals; Science Learning Centres;
the Sciencewise Expert Resource Centre; STEMNET; and the UK Resource
Centre for Women in Science, Engineering and Technology. There
is a real willingness and energy within the public engagement
community to work together. Most recently this is illustrated
by the developing UK Young Scientist's and Engineers' Fair, now
a large collaborative exercise which was originally instigated
by the British Science Association with Young Engineers, and with
initial support from the ETB.
18. The UK has a high international reputation
in this field. The British Science Association believes that the
ideas outlined above will enable the UK to continue to lead the
way, and help improve public confidence in science and engineering
policy.
January 2009
|
