Concerns over the public’s relationship with science have been around as long as we have had a concept of professional science (indeed, some would argue, earlier). Notable examples include the foundation of the Royal Institution and the British Association for the Advancement of Science as well as the building of science museums across the world. Generally, these projects have been motivated by worries over the lack of public funds for science, a perceived need for more trained scientists and/or concerns that non-scientists have been misled by the claims of pseudo-science or new age beliefs.
Science communication can be a very controversial area, as the various norms and motivations of a multitude of groups bustle for dominance. For example, activist groups and scientists may all clash over science policy (e.g. on issues of animal experimentation). Similarly, journalists and scientists might argue over the best way to simplify complex ideas for a non-expert audience, or disagree over what angle a news story should take (see also news values). People working in science communication often find themselves challenged to answer some quite philosophical questions on the nature of democracy, expertise and scientific realism.
Today, there are a multitude of terms associated with science communication, many with rather unfortunate acronyms. For example: PUS (the Public Understanding of Science), PEST (Public Engagement with Science & Technology), PAWS (Public awareness of science), scientific literacy, popular science, science outreach, science and the media, or science in society.
Each term tends to be associated with particular ideas about the way science should or does relate to the rest of society. For example, the Public Understanding of Science (PUS) movement is generally associated with a rather didactic approach, assuming non-scientist publics are deficient in scientific knowledge which will improve their lives. A 1985 report by Walter Bodmer for the Royal Society is often credited as mobilising people in the UK around this approach. In the USA the term scientific literacy is more often used to describe a similar approach, often associated with the work of Jon Miller (e.g. 1983), whose work testing how well the public matched understand science formed the basis for the National Science Foundation’s biannual science indicator surveys from the 1970s onwards.
In contrast to PUS and scientific literacy, science communicators who stress the word ‘engagement’ are more likely to respect non-scientist’s own knowledge (and lack of it) and feel there is worth in getting scientists and publics to talk with each other. The House of Lords Third Report on Science and Society from 2000 formalised such ‘a new mood for dialogue’ in UK science communication. Soon after, a highly influential report from the think tank Demos, See-Through Science popularised the need for ‘upstream’ engagement which emphasises the need for the public to be involved at an early stage of science policy development.
Science communication can be a very controversial area, as the various norms and motivations of a multitude of groups bustle for dominance. For example, activist groups and scientists may all clash over science policy (e.g. on issues of animal experimentation). Similarly, journalists and scientists might argue over the best way to simplify complex ideas for a non-expert audience, or disagree over what angle a news story should take (see also news values). People working in science communication often find themselves challenged to answer some quite philosophical questions on the nature of democracy, expertise and scientific realism.
Today, there are a multitude of terms associated with science communication, many with rather unfortunate acronyms. For example: PUS (the Public Understanding of Science), PEST (Public Engagement with Science & Technology), PAWS (Public awareness of science), scientific literacy, popular science, science outreach, science and the media, or science in society.
Each term tends to be associated with particular ideas about the way science should or does relate to the rest of society. For example, the Public Understanding of Science (PUS) movement is generally associated with a rather didactic approach, assuming non-scientist publics are deficient in scientific knowledge which will improve their lives. A 1985 report by Walter Bodmer for the Royal Society is often credited as mobilising people in the UK around this approach. In the USA the term scientific literacy is more often used to describe a similar approach, often associated with the work of Jon Miller (e.g. 1983), whose work testing how well the public matched understand science formed the basis for the National Science Foundation’s biannual science indicator surveys from the 1970s onwards.
In contrast to PUS and scientific literacy, science communicators who stress the word ‘engagement’ are more likely to respect non-scientist’s own knowledge (and lack of it) and feel there is worth in getting scientists and publics to talk with each other. The House of Lords Third Report on Science and Society from 2000 formalised such ‘a new mood for dialogue’ in UK science communication. Soon after, a highly influential report from the think tank Demos, See-Through Science popularised the need for ‘upstream’ engagement which emphasises the need for the public to be involved at an early stage of science policy development.
Comments
Post a Comment