HPSC1008 Introduction to Science Communication

1
HPSC1008 Introduction to Science Communication

• Lecture Four
• The Public Understanding of Science
• Monday 20th October

2
Historical context

• Critical turn towards science in the late
  1960/70s
• Scientists felt calls for social accountability
  had gone too far
• Environmental movement
• Scientists in far less control of science
  communication message
• Largely withdrew from popularisation
• 1979 new right-wing Thatcher Government in UK
• Reduced public spending on science
• Lots of scientists going to work abroad
• Scientists felt disempowered
• Fragile cultural authority

3
Unwritten rules of science popularisation

• Scientist must first have reputation as credible
  researcher
• Popularisation should only follow professional
  publications
• Scientist should popularise only after productive
  research life is over
• Stick to area of expertise
• Act only to improve the image of science
• Avoid extremes of opinion

4
The decline of science?

• Charles Babbage (1791- 1871)
• Reflections on the Decline of Science in England,
  and some of its causes (1829)
• Science is not supported by the government
  because the public is not interested in it
• Suggested that a body be set up to raise public
  feeling on science
• BAAS was set up to popularise science in Britain
• Get public support

5
The Royal Society and PUS

• 1985, a working group was established with
  geneticist Walter Bodmer as chair to
• review the nature and extent of public
  understanding of science and its adequacy for an
  advanced democracy, to review the mechanisms for
  effecting PUS and to consider the constraints
  upon the processes of communication and how they
  might be overcome

6
The Bodmer Report (1985)

• The public understanding of science must be
  improved.
• Reasons? Fall into three catagories
• Democratic argument
• E.g. members of a technological culture need some
  understanding to particiapte as citizens
• Cultural argument
• E.g. science is a pround intellectual achievement
  of humankind, like art and literature
• Practical argument
• E.g. science has immediate personal application
  to everyday problems
• Better understanding provides better workforce,
  and national prosperity
• Public better able to demarcate between science
  and pseudoscience

7
Achieving better PUS

• Scientists must learn to communicate with the
  public
• scientists should ... communicate with the
  public ... indeed, consider it their duty to do
  so. (Royal Society 1985)
• So recommendations of report went against
  unwritten rules of science popularisation
• Royal Institution, Royal Society and BAAS came
  together in movement to increase the public
  understanding of science
• 1986 - Committee on the Public Understanding of
  Science (COPUS) set up
• Economic and Social research council sets up a
  social research programme into PUS

8
COPUS

• Joint initiative between RI, RS and BAAS
• Members were distingushed scientists
• Provided money for science communication
  activities, science books prize, medals for the
  best science communicators, national science week
• All activity and outreach aimed at increasing PUS
• Reasons couched in grand claims seen earlier

9
PUS or PAS?

• An underlying assumption of PUS movement in
  1980/90s
• If the public know more about science they would
  like it/appreciate it more
• This would then create a more favourable climate
  for science and scientists
• So political and social goals behind science
  communication
• Implicit in dominant model

10
Science communication theory

• Science communication thought about in simple
  linear models
• Sender Transmitter Receiver
• Lasswell transmission model, 1948

11
The dominant model II

• Science
• Media
• Public

• Scientists at the top of the heap
• if journalists do bad things can be blamed as
  distortion of science
• if scientists do good things can be seen as good
  science communication
• giving their knowledge to a perceived ignorant
  public
• top down model

12
Social research into PUS

• Research focused in 2 different ways
• Quantifying the problem PUS
• i.e. what doesnt the public know about science?
• How can we know which gaps in knowledge to target
  with our science communication?
• In line with the agenda of science community and
  COPUS
• Based on quantitative social science methods -
  surveys
• First UK survey in 1988
• Knowledge based quiz

13
Who knows what about Science?
14
Social research into PUS II

• Second type of research into PUS was qualitative
• Asked v different questions
• Didnt see the problem in same way
• Conducted by STSers, historians, anthropologists,
  etc
• How do the public relate to science?
• Based on interviews and examination of real world
  situations
• Very critical of other research methods
• Does understanding of science relate to our
  understanding of abstract facts?
• Do the public relate to science in different and
  less explicit way?

15
Science in abstract vs. science in context

• 1998 survey asked abstract question
• What does it mean to study something
  scientifically?
• Only 3 mentioned theories
• Only 10 mentioned experiment
• Given a concrete problem
• Choose method for testing why a drug not
  working
• 56 chose controlled experiment

16
A deficit model of PUS?

• So different questions construct different ideas
  of the public
• Stupid vs. knowledgeable
• Social scientists very critical of what they
  called the deficit model of public understanding
  of science that underlay their PUS movement
• Public passive and ignorant (deficient in
  scientific knowledge)
• Fits with scientists idea of the public and
  science communication (dominant model)
• So is there a problem of PUS?
• Depends on who you ask

17
A contextual model of PUS

• Social scientists propsed an alternative model of
  PUS (in opposition to the deficit model)
• That the public integrated science with their
  existing knowledges, life experiences and
  attitudes
• People acquire, or are prepared to acquire only
  scientific info that they need for their own
  circumstances
• Very different model idea of public as
  lay-expert
• Can learn and use scientific knowledge when
  needed and useful.
• E.g. long-term illness sufferers become experts
  on own disease
• Specific knowledge in context rather than
  abstract knowledge or facts
• Fundamental issue becomes being able to trust the
  source of information
• So PUS is about social relations, not information
  provision

18
PUS in the 1990s

• Two almost separate spheres
• Scientific approach (deficit model)
• More science communication
• Improve scientific literacy
• Supported by UK government
• 1993 White paper gave money to PUS, set up gov
  funding for science communication initiatives
• 1995 Wolfendale report charged all research
  councils with task of increasing PUS
• Saw increased PUS as key to strong economy
• Social scientific approach
• Critical of deficit model, and idea that public
  is problematic
• Improving social relations the key, not just more
  science communication

19
So did it all work?

• No denying that PUS changed science in UK
• Lots of popular science again
• Lots of money for science communication
• But new survey on attitudes and knowledge in 1996
  showed no change in scientific literacy scores
• So science communication not worked?
• Or situation more complex (as social scientists
  had pointed out)
• Prompted a rethink in science communication and
  PUS in 2000s

20
Week 4 Task

• A new journal for PUS research was launched in
  1992
• Lots of different launch perspectives in first
  edition Public Understanding of Science 1(1)
• Help us understand the different ways this was
  thought about
• Read one from each group
• Bodmer, Miller
• Levy-LeBlond, Fayard, Wynne
• Think about how each describes PUS, the public,
  science and science communication
• Come to seminar prepared to talk about them!!!