The Road Ahead document can be downloaded as a PDF by the way – there’s a way of selecting all the pages and requesting a download. I had the same problems as you with the interface!

I am a History of Art graduate, with not even an ‘O’ level in a science subject, (which we did in the olden days) in fact I always actively hated science at school. More recently I developed the Responsible Nano Code, a code of conduct for industry using nanotechnologies, create and wrote much of http://www.nanoandme.org, I ran the Responsible Nano Forum and now run MATTER, an independent organisation looking at making new technologies work for us all. All of these organisations and initiatives have been widely supported and I might even say respected in the science community I was recently able to put glowing recommendations from scientists and leaders of science academies as well as from other stakeholder groups on a tender for funding.

So it really isn’t at all necessary for anyone to understand science in order to contribute to thinking on the development of applications of science. Luckily I don’t need to understand the basic properties of sodium to do my work or make a useful contribution in this arena or any other. Does the fact that a scientist doesn’t know the plot of Waiting for Godot, or the background to the build up of the First World War mean he or she is making less of a contribution to the world. No of course not, though openness to new ideas, new perspectives and alternate views which may arise from the interest in gaining or retaining that knowledge may be helpful.

However, what does concern me about the debate about science and the public is that it can distract scientists and companies from the taking responsibility for the impact of their own work. For example, in the light of the issues with BSE, CJD, GM etc in the UK, the main focus of the response was not about more responsible and accountable science and commercial development, but more public dialogue, which if I was being unconstructive, sometimes looks like a point of view which says ‘ if the public understood the science they would be more likely to support science’ and therefore overlook the issues around governance and safety which were unclear at the time?

Even the most enlightened commentators state with despair that the key to a public understanding and involvement with science is better science teaching in schools, so more people ‘understand’ science and therefore can engage properly with the debate.

That won’t do the trick, honest. It might mean we get more much-needed scientists entering the job market, it might mean Prof Brian Cox gets more people watching his TV programmes and I hope, though don’t see why it should, it gets more evidence- based thinking at the heart of decision making in many areas of work as the diaspora spreads.

But the majority of people won’t take from the STEM courses, as they are currently configured, the importance of understanding the perspectives of others, the ability to think about the impact of their work on society, the ability to communicate and engage about their work and to gain a better understanding of values and morality in relation to science. That’s much more important to the role of science and technology in the world than whether you understand the basic properties of sodium. It doesn’t appear to get taught at school or pretty much anywhere else except perhaps some progressive universities, though I may be wrong about that too.

But this sounds like I am not a supporter of public involvement with science, I am, and public involvement in communities, health, planning, schools, politics etc etc. It almost sounds like The Big Society – hey, not sure I meant to do that!

Those interested in ‘real’ public involvement may be interested in the varied and thoughtful responses from the contributors to the UK’s Sciencewise-ERC’s new publication The Road Ahead which is well worth a read and a nice ‘scientific’ antidote to much of the rant and rage which accompanied the publication of the US document. I have only read a couple so far, and I have found them very thought provoking. Will be interested to see what response we get over here, please let it be less vitriol and more constructive debate!

Read more: http://2020science.org/2010/07/04/scientist-listen-to-the-public-surely-youre-joking-mr-mooney/comment-page-1/#comment-74820#ixzz0ssiKL6EY

Honestly, I’m going to have to disagree with you on the subject of everyone’s worldview mattering – it depends on precisely what situation we’re talking about in which a worldview can or cannot matter. For example, if we’re talking about a major scientifically-based policy decision, I am darn sure not going to think some eejit YEC-er in BFE’s viewpoint matters, because it’s pretty obvious the dude doesn’t know science. (I do not consider this arrogant; I consider this a matter of saying ‘if you can’t show proof for your claims, we’re not going to give them any credence’. You can say it as tactfully as you want to.) Saying ‘oh, everyone’s viewpoint matters’ is getting into the touchy-feely and very unrealistic-sounding zone, and alarm bells go off in my head when anything related to science gets into the touchy-feely zone.

The worldview you appear to be mentioning here, though, seems to be more of the ought-aspect rather than the is-aspect of the worldview. (I am much more amenable to dealing with differences in ‘ought’ than ‘is’, and I suspect many others on the scientific side of the science-people-and-public conversation are too.)

I go one step further and would like to argue that citizens have a DUTY, not just a right, to be empowered to be effective participants in a science-and-technology-dependent society (I do not believe anyone should have the right to be willfully ignorant) and agree that they have a duty to participate in certain decisions, though I really think certain parties’ ability to affect a decision should be weighted differently, depending on the situation.

Regarding scientific literacy, I’m not jumping to measuring it in terms of facts learned – it is important to know certain key things, and I agree that it is largely HOW people think that is important – but honestly, if it’s obvious that you’re not intellectually curious and you’re not willing to argue rationally no matter how hard the person you’re talking to tries, then I’m not going to judge you as scientifically literate.

Regarding where others are coming from, well, I suppose I try to understand that, ever the optimist, but there are many times where I have tried to do so and ended up hanging my head in shame that I’d gotten into the conversation in the first place when faced with a rabid fundamentalist, AGW denialist, or simply somebody that even when presented with a big stack o’ citations (yes, I’ve done this out of sheer exasperation) goes ‘duhhhhhhhhhhh what is that?’

Bitter? Jaded? Me? Yes.

But I do remember all the major things. That’s not the case with most people. Nobody wants you to remember the molecular weight of sodium. But you should know the basics chemical properties. That kind of stuff.

And your joke with the Second Law is very tragically misplaced. The Second Law is the single most important scientific result of all times in terms of its implications for everyday life. It’s bigger even than evolution. A very good case can be made that there shouldn’t be a single person in the world who doesn’t understand the second law, much less the vast majority of people as it is the case today, because once a critical mass of people who don’t understand the second law and act as if it didn’t exist is in place, the society in question is in very big trouble (as we are right now).

Thanks Gaythia. This is a complex issue, and there is a lot of room for debate and discussion. Although I do think there is a danger of focusing on the the messengers rather than the message – imagine if the peer review process revolved round dissing the authors rather than looking at what they actually wrote! I’ve been intrigued here to see that many of the experts in the field of science engagement – and many of my colleagues over in the UK who don’t know Chris from Adam – have been struggling to see what all the fuss is about!

Think you are being a little down on your fellow humans there! However, I do think that our education system is struggling when it comes to science (and technology) – especially in the US. This is an ill-formed perspective at the moment, as so probably highly colored and flawed, but it seems the US system is an elitist one – the kids with the highest potential to move into science are nurtured, and the rest are all but forgotten. A simple anecdote – my daughter is going into 10th grade next year, and she has never been in a science lab – something that I still cannot get my head around!

Of course there are complexities here – a better science education isn’t going to turn out what many might hope of a “science literate” populace. But it might just empower them to participate more effectively in a science-dependent society.

I’m thinking about the basic assumptions and beliefs people base their understanding of the world on – and the way they live their lives and make decisions. Everyone has them – even scientists! They include the shortcuts, assumptions and – for want of a better word – beliefs – that we all rely on to make sense of an incredibly complex and incomprehensible world.

So here’s just a part of what I would consider my worldview:

I think that science has an important – but not exclusive – role in defining what it means to be human and making sense of the world and our place in it.

I think that science and technology have the potential to make life better for many people

I think that in a science and technology-dependent society, citizens have a right to be empowered to be effective participants, and a duty to participate in decisions on how science and technology are developed and used.

I can argue with reason and passion for each one. But at the end of the day, these are simply beliefs on which I build my life – and as such, have no more legitimacy than many other beliefs than underpin worldviews.

So while I would agree with you that people should be more science-savvy, I would always consider listening to and trying to understand where others are coming from as extremely important (another strand of my worldview if you like) – just in case they are seeing something that I’m missing.

And on the question of scientific literacy, I think we need to be careful in measuring this in terms of facts learned, in part because it is how people think rather than what they know that I suspect is important, and in part because if people were expected to carry around key facts from every area of knowledge, we’d be overwhelmed!

Nice to get a smile out of it though, so thanks for the satire Andrew!

I don’t think it’s a ridiculous thing to ask for a certain amount of scientific literacy in the populace – and I’m not even talking about understanding of string theory (which I only barely comprehend, not even being in physics) or even rattling off the subdivisions of the hippocampus – and as has been shown in the GSS, there isn’t a whole heck of a lot in the United States. I’m a biology student and I’m currently also a volunteer at an aquarium, and you wouldn’t believe how many people can’t even identify an octopus, for example.

Although there is some very innovative thinking here in the US on the science-society contract/partnership, my sense is that the vast bulk of the science community are still just waking up to the radical rethink that is needed here. And this is in spite of people like Sheila Jasanoff and others spending many years redefining the relationship.

On the surface, the UK has been far more progressive – as it’s had to be following very obvious strain in the science-society partnership in recent times. But from 3000 miles away, it does seem that there is a tendency to old-school thinking under the surface – reflected in lots of talk but little “walk” from some (not all) sectors of government, and a seemingly growing vocal “science rationalism” movement.

And you are right – this is a terribly tired debate. But sadly, it seems to be one that still needs to be grappled with if society as a whole is going to work out what to do with science (if I can put it so indelicately).

I suspect thought that it is also time for some new thinking – which includes concrete ideas for making progress as well as concerned hand-wringing.

Lots more to say about this, but I do so hate long comments…

Seriously, I oscillate between thinking “bloody hell, Americans must have it bad” and reflecting that although Britain may make itself out to be the space of enlightened science communication, in reality it’s a lot more reactionary than the now 10-year old Lords Sci in Soc report might make out. I wonder if we really aren’t that different after-all.

Moreover, this is a TERRIBLY tired debate (they were tired 10 years ago in the Lords report). Surely by now it’s time for something new?