Reading through the various science and technology offerings on the web this morning, I was struck by a conversation between Houston Chronicle reporter Eric Berger and Neal Lane, former National Science Foundation director and science advisor to President Clinton. Not surprisingly, towards the top of the conversation is President Obama’s commitment to “restore science to its rightful place” and what this might mean. But before this, Neal raises something that he has championed for many years now, and one that I suspect is more than ready for a new lease of life as science and policy come together under the new administration to tackle a tough portfolio of challenges—the concept of the civic scientist.
Civic scientists—according to Lane—are those scientists and engineers who “step beyond their campuses, laboratories, and institutes and into the center of their communities to engage in active dialogue with their fellow citizens.” This is more than science communication; it’s a two-way dialogue between people who generate knowledge, and people are impacted by that knowledge—whether in the decisions they make, or the decisions other make.
Although it’s fashionable to talk about science communication these days—witness the just-launched “Science: So what? So everything” campaign in the UK—the idea of the civic scientist as originally conceived has languished somewhat in recent years… Maybe bad memories of “civics” at school are the problem. Maybe the political climate of the past eight years hasn’t favored a more integrated perspective of science in society. Or maybe scientists just need a little more encouragement to place their work in a social context. Whatever the reason, the idea of scientists engaging on broader social issues isn’t as widely lauded as is perhaps should be.
As the new Obama administration works out what science’s rightful place is, and governments around the world grapple with increasingly complex global challenges—climate change, energy, water, food, poverty, equity between developed and developing nations, and a whole host of other issues—it is critical that science, technology and engineering are an integral part of the solutions. But the old model of a one-way flow of information from science to society will not—cannot—work. Instead, we need something far closer to Lane’s ideas on science and social responsibility.
In 1999, Neal Lane published “The Civic Scientist and Science Policy” in the AAAS Science and Technology Policy Yearbook. In it, he clearly articulates why a new generation of “civic scientists” is necessary—not just in policy circles, but throughout society. This, to my mind, should be required reading for anyone involved in scientific research.
Speaking to research scientists and engineers, Lane notes that
“Although scientist and nonscientist alike can marvel at the power of our knowledge in science and technology, it is the intersection of this knowledge with the goals and needs of society that is our larger responsibility. Understanding this crossroads of knowledge and needs and then acting on behalf of society will present our most challenging task.”
It is the civic scientist, Lane contents, who will be most effective at this intersection. And to clarify this role, he asks
“Do I mean that we go out and teach science to shopkeepers, lawyers, consultants, and construction workers? Not entirely. To engage in dialogue is to listen as well as to speak. While there is great need for the public to have a better understanding of science, and we should promote this in every way possible, there is as great a need for scientists to have a better understanding of the public.”
Let me just repeat that last bit because I think it’s important, reminding you that this is a distinguished scientist writing: “there is as great a need for scientists to have a better understanding of the public.”
How many times do scientists feel that their role is to lecture, not to listen? Yet clearly there is a need for a two-way dialogue if science is to be a part of addressing social challenges.
Developing these ideas, Lane writes:
“We are all aware that the advancement of civilization has, in many respects, been driven by the scientific and technological research of each succeeding generation. We so frequently hear and use the phrase “science and society” that perhaps it has become a cliché. I think we would agree that this phrase has meant that science has “a relationship with” or “a role in” society. Within this context, the world scientific community has unraveled many of the secrets of nature, and of its many life forms.
“We would agree that science is a force absolutely fundamental to our well-being and, in fact, survival. Science and society are interdependent. We are only slowly coming to recognize that science and engineering must be seriously concerned with the many and great unsolved problems of humankind.
“I have frequently pointed out that we are able to do increasingly outstanding research at the same time that many societal disparities and problems are also increasing. Although the long-held professional goals of teaching and research are noble and significant, perhaps they are not enough. Nor is it sufficient for those of us who have chosen public service on behalf of science and engineering to simply keep the research enterprise healthy and balanced, as vitally important as that is. A further goal for all of us must be to understand the physical, moral, and social problems that hold our civilization in the grip of numerous contradictions.”
There follows an exploration of the role science has within society. In particular, Lane highlights three challenges that loomed large ten years ago:
“We know that energy, environment, and economics form the triumviral challenge of the coming century; they are inextricably wedded. If we are able to develop such new technical capabilities, they will, by their very nature, create cultural changes in energy use, economic development, and environmental protection. Developing such technical capabilities with their economic potential will require that our researchers continue to push back the frontiers of virtually every field of science and technology.”
Ten years on, and these same challenges are looming ever larger.
Lane concludes
“As we think about creating a complex global problem-solving agenda, we must first acknowledge that it is surely the greatest challenge the world scientific and engineering community could be asked to undertake. It will engage all fields from physics to psychology, from economics to biology, from electrical engineering to sociology. And in the long run it will require more than science and engineering. Policymakers will be crucial to any and all solutions.
“Science and technology and public policy empower each other’s goals. In contemporary society, neither could be appropriately effective without being a partner-participant with the other.
“Scientists and engineers cannot be expected to solve the vast societal problems from within their own professional community. On the other hand, few, if any, of these problems could be solved without the science community’s knowledge and skill base as a foundation. Intelligent public policy helps lead us toward the cultural and institutional change required to meet these needs. Only with a combination of the two can we hope to succeed.
“We could, with some legitimacy, declare the task too great, too complex, and thus too impossible. Many of us might be inclined to view these real-world dynamic systems as chaotic to a large power, without any “attractors” (strange or otherwise). There were many who said the same about the concept of the United Nations. But there were some who said this will not be easy, but we cannot risk not trying.
“The 21st century presents daunting challenges and extraordinary opportunities. If we accept those challenges and recognize those opportunities we will not only advance the frontiers of science but also address the great unsolved problems of humanity.
In the final analysis, this larger engagement does not mean a focused or fixed research agenda. It does mean openness to new research challenges and unprecedented partnerships among diverse fields and interests. It does mean a commitment to effective communication of knowledge, and connections between discovery and the use of new knowledge in service to society. And it especially means placing a high priority on education and learning for all youngsters wherever they begin their lives.”
The only things of substance that have changed between when Neal Lane wrote this in 1999 and now are the scale and magnitude of the challenges we face nationally and globally. In this context, perhaps it’s time to revisit his idea of the civic scientist, and put renewed effort into developing a generation of scientists, engineers and technologists who understand how to use their skills in the service of society.
No related posts.
{ 2 comments… read them below or add one }
Yes, the key to better communication and engagement is to develop our talent to listen. Yet how many programs geared to engaging the public in science intentionally develop–let alone emphasize–the skill of listening?
In conversation, the ears matter as much as the mouth. We need more programs for scientists that cultivate listening and conversation.
Neal Lane’s original vision for the civic scientist got it right; but watch out–you’ll find people who use the phrase as just another term for a well-tuned speaker who is willing to talk to elected officials and policy-makers about controversial topics.
Tom,
I couldn’t agree more. Thanks for highlighting this.
One concern I didn’t voice in the post is that over the past few years various people have watered the concept down – even subverted it – so that it is simply another label for one-way communication.
{ 2 trackbacks }