I’ve been sitting here for over half an hour, trying to work out how to start this blog in an engaging and witty way, but have failed miserably—it’s been a long day! Instead, let me come straight to the point, because it’s quite a simple one—please read Sir Robert Winston’s article “Why turning out brilliant scientists isn’t enough” in this week’s New Scientist. It’s one of the clearest and most compelling commentaries on the need for scientists to listen to and engage with members of the public that I have read for some time.
OK, I guess I should say a little more—that is after all a rather terse opening paragraph!
As anyone living in the UK will tell you, Sir Robert is a highly regarded popularizer of science. .. Professor of science and society and emeritus professor of fertility studies at Imperial College London, he has a rare ability to convey complex ideas with clarity and enthusiasm. But he also understands that scientists need to learn to listen to people—to enter a two-way dialogue with members of society who are impacted by their work.
Sir Robert notes early on in the New Scientist article that prior to an influential House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology enquiry in 1999, “many believed that for people to trust more in the value of science, it would be enough for scientists simply to educate the public.” This is the so-called deficit model—the idea that the more you educate people, the more likely they are to make reasonable decisions—defined rather loosely as the same decisions you would make!
This is now generally recognized as being a bad model—people make decisions based on a range of values, and knowledge plays only a part in the process. Which is why Sir Robert points out that “These days it is widely understood that fostering public engagement – rather than just mere public understanding – is of key importance.”
Sadly, I’m not convinced that this message has reached everyone that needs to hear it, which is why this article is a must-read for anyone working in science or science policy.
Sir Robert writes,
“Most scientific research in the UK is paid for by the taxpayer, and when technologies have a negative impact the consequences can be profound for everyone. The scientific knowledge we pursue is public property. We scientists have a duty not merely to tell people what we are doing (a skill not taught as well as it should be in most universities), but also to listen to people’s fears and hopes and respond to them, even when we feel their antagonism to be ill-founded. Being open in this way has been shown to have real advantages.”
In particular, he cites the ScienceWise project, set up by Kathy Sykes at the University of Bristol in the UK.
The article continues,
“A two-way dialogue – communication in the fullest sense – seems more likely than a one-way lecture to lead to a maturing of views and resolution of conflict. It can help scientists to accept that some public concerns may be justified, and that recognising them can improve their science; and it makes the public aware of the good intentions of scientists. If we show that we care about the ethical implications of our work, people are likely to be more sympathetic.”
Richard Jones’ recent article on nanotechnology, science and public engagement in the UK supports Sir Robert’s assertion that dialogue is a much more constructive and valuable process than well-based consultations and opinion-polls (and, I might add, public lectures).
Unfortunately, there are still pockets of intellectual elitism within science, and approaches to “public engagement” that smack of hubris rather than humility. I’m constantly astounded by how many well-meaning scientists still believe that public engagement is just about communicating their knowledge to people, without that essential step of listening and reponding. I’ve heard fellow scientists say that their work is too complex for people to understand. This is probably true in many cases. Yet most people are quite capable of understanding the implications of science and technology in their lives, even if they struggle with understanding the science and technology itself. And lets be honest, an expert is only an expert in their own narrow field—outside of it, they tend to be as dumb as the rest of us!
Practicing science is a privilege. As scientists we are accountable to the society that supports us. And we have an obligation to listen to and work with the people whom our work affects, as well as translating the science in ways that is accessible, informative and enriching.
But to achieve this more integrated relationship between science and society will take some work. As Sir Robert’s points out, “turning out brilliant scientists isn’t enough.” We also need to turn out brilliant scientists who can engage effectively with others.
_________________
Update, Feb 6 2009. Having re-read the original post, I’ve added in a few very minor editorial corrections. I also thought it worth linking to the following recent posts that address the role of science in society:
A “manifesto” for socially-relevant science and technology (Dec 24 2008)
Nanotechnology, science and public engagement—lessons from the UK (Jan 13 2009)
Revisiting the Civic Scientist (Feb 1 2009)
No related posts.
{ 4 comments… read them below or add one }
There need to be some rewards. At SB4.0, I was talking to some academics about the status of popularising scientists among their peers and how they are often regarded with suspicion among their own community and can be a bit bad for their career. Some we discussed were people you’d expect to see as an FRS at the very least but are shunned by the same society that professes to engage with the public.
There is a danger with the current setup, such as the latest rounds of synbio research grants from BBSRC etc that there has to be a social science and engagement component. It’s treated as a tick-box item which people are only too happy too tick to get the money but then regard the exercise as being a chore and a bit irrelevant. You can see what can happen with this at SynBERC where the social science element has ‘seceded’.
I’ve posted this to my colleagues at Imp.College SciCom Group (who should know all about it anyhow!).
There are lots of ways things can trip up in the PUS/PEST debate. The ‘respond’ part of PEST (Public Engagement with Science and Technology) I think can easily be missed. Is there a middle ground between straight lectures and full-blown public consultations? There is a ‘sort of engagement’ at events like those at the London Dana Centre, but I think something’s missing in terms of follow-through.
I also think it’s easy to throw the baby out with the bathwater. An element of PUS type content is useful. People do, I’m afraid, sometimes have a knowledge deficit; I know I do. Blasphemy. The latest, and for me most mature, academic treatment of the subject is by Massimiano Bucchi; and guess what he favours: a ‘multi-model’ approach, including a bit of PUS.
Keeps us off the streets.
Tim,
Couldn’t agree more – need to keep an eye on what we want to achieve, rather than get hung up on ideologies on how it should be achieved.
Chris,
Rewards and peer pressure are major issues There is immense snobbery in academic circles still that considers effective communication to non-specialists somewhat distasteful, and a mark of intellectual weakness. And the check-box mentality is rife – talking the talk but, when it comes to it, failing to walk the walk. (In the US the tenure system makes any less-conventional activities – from cross-disciplinary collaboration to effective communication and engagement – les attractive than they should be).
I do think the culture is changing though as a new generation of researchers come through. There are plenty of scientists out there who want to communicate and engage in a meaningful way, and find a way to make their work count. The trick will be in nurturing this culture change, so it doesn’t get beaten out of people…