Paper presented to the NZ Science Communication Assn. Conference Dunedin 10 July 2008

1. Scientists on the Soapbox: constructing new social technologies for science and society communication Paper presented to the NZ Science Communication Assn. Conference Dunedin 10 July 2008 Dr Karen Cronin Science Leader (Science, Technology and Society) Integrative Research for Sustainability Group Environmental Science and Research (ESR)

2. Why should anyone care about the public understanding of science? • Science is arguably the greatest achievement of our culture and people deserve to know about it. • Science affects everyone’s lives and people need to know about it. • Many public policy decisions involve science and to be democratic this requires informed public debate. • Science is publicly supported and as such there should be at least a minimum of public knowledge. • The science community would be unwise to presume on the continued backing of a public that knows little of what scientists do. Durant, et al Nature Vol 340 6 July 1989 pp 11-14

3. Assuming that knowledge about science leads to greater support… Knowledge Attitude Funding Ziman, J. 1992. Not knowing, needing to know and wanting to know. In When Science meets the public. B.V. Lewenstein (ed) pp 13-2-. Washington DC. American Association for the Advancement of Science

4. The public Science Media ☼ ☼ ☼ Science Communication

5. Some issues with this approach… • Increasing information has not increased the ‘science literacy’ of the public. • The public is not anti-science • But, trust in science and the regulation of science is easily eroded. • Science communication relies heavily on the news media but the media may misrepresent or sensationize science. • In the case of controversial R,S&T, increasing information may not reduce risk aversion. • Public perceptions of science have an increasing influence on policy decisions. • Non specialists do not need to understand scientific details to discuss social and ethical issues. • Communicating scientific ‘facts’ will not overcome strategic or normative concerns. • Policy decisions rely on social judgement, as well as evidence. • Science communication is still largely ‘provider’ driven rather than responsive top social and market preferences. • Scientists’ understanding of publics is just as important as public understanding of science. Office of Science and Technology and the Wellcome Trust. Science and the Public: a review of science communication and public attitudes toward science in Britain. Public Understanding of Science 10 (2001) pp 315-330 Davies, S.R. Constructing Communication: talking to scientists about talking to the public. Science Communication Vol 29 No 4 June 2008 pp 413-434

6. Evolution of Science Communication • Postwar society: adulation, hostility and ambiguity (scientists retreat from public stage). • 1985 Bodner Report UK Public Understanding of Science: overcoming public illiteracy = ‘Deficit model’. One way communication (promoting science and scientific facts through the news media). • 1988-1996: little change in scientific literacy of the public (other than increased recognition of the initials of DNA). • 1980’s: Science Technology and Society Studies (STS): Critique of the deficit model: social context and lay knowledge are important; the science process is not always linear, rational or complete (scientists are people too). • 2000: Science and Society House of Lords Report = “Engagement Model”. Dialogue, discussion and debate. Two way communication between science and the public. • Currently – greater public understanding of how science is actually done, recognition of the changes and limitations in scientific knowledge. Miller, S. (2001) Public Understanding of Science at the Crossroads Public Understanding of Science (10) pp 115-120

7. The changing social contract between science and society • Post War period: Science expected to produce reliable knowledge and communicate its discoveries to society. “Science speaking to Society” • Now: “Society Speaking Back” Scientific knowledge must be socially robust i.e. valid inside and outside the laboratory, involving wider experts and lay experts, sensitive to social implications. Knowledge production is transparent and participative. Reciprocity: requiring the public to understand how science works and science to understand how its publics work. Gibbons, M. (1999) Science’s new social contract with society. Nature 401 C81

8. What does this mean for Science Communication practice?

9. Science communication Deficit Model=selling science to the public Engagement Model = communicating with the public about science

10. Source Channel Receiver→ Message → One-Way Communication

11. One – way communication objectives:- provide information- raise awareness- increase understanding- change behaviour

12. One way communication techniques:BrochuresPostersNewslettersMedia storiesInformation sheetsEducation kitsSeminarsPublic meetings WebsitesBlogs

13. Two way communication – multiple parties

14. Two- way communication objectives • Provide and receive information • Involve experts and others in the discussion • Increase public interest and reduce resistance • Test ideas with other people • Identify new issues, information or options • Generate alternatives / improve choice • Achieve ‘buy in’ and acceptance • Reduce cost • Improve technical outcomes

15. Two-way communication techniques:Focus groups/market researchCommunity meetings Relationships with stakeholder groupsInteractive seminars/ workshopsCommunity advisory groupNegotiation/ Agreements/ PartnershipsDialogue

16. The public Science ☼ ☼ ☼ ☼ ☼ ☼ Scientists as Communicators

17. Factors Affecting Science Communication: A survey of scientists and engineers for The Royal Society, Research Councils UK and The Wellcome TrustSeptember 2005http://www.peoplescienceandpolicy.com/index.php • Engaging with non-specialists is needed to promote public understanding of science so that the public become better informed and understand the relevance of science to everyday life. • The most important audiences to engage directly are policy makers, schools and industry. • Three quarters of those surveyed had taken part in at least one science communication or public engagement activity in the last year.

18. Key findings • Strong positive relationship between the number of activities undertaken by a scientist and their perceived importance of public engagement. • A fifth of respondents said that taking part in public engagement activities was perceived as a barrier to career progression by their peers. • The majority of junior staff would participate more if it helped with their career and they had the support of their heads of department. • The best incentive for public engagement would be that it generates more money for a scientists’ department. • Funders should support public engagement activity, although this should be an optional rather than a mandatory requirement of funding agreements. • Most of those surveyed had no media, communications or public engagement training.

19. Conclusion: Researchers do not give priority to science communication activities because they feel they need to spend their time on research, although the majority of scientists wanted to be able to spend more time engaging with the public.

20. The public Science ☼ Science Communicators ☼ ☼ Science Communicators as translators

21. Science Communication –Selling Science • Increase public support for science • Reduce public distrust • Increase profile for science sector • Promote science as a career • Enhance the case for science funding • Acknowledge the social worth of science and scientists

22. Scientists understanding of communication Survey of scientists and engineers UK* : • Communication needs to be relevant, clued into people’s personal experience • Communicate big ideas, not detailed research • Use visual and interactive forms of communication rather than lectures or text • Communication often difficult due to public expectations and media treatment of science * Davies, S.R. Constructing Communication: talking to scientists about talking to the public. Science Communication Vol 29 No 4 June 2008 pp 413-434

23. Purpose of sciencecommunication Most see it as a one way transfer of information to: • Educate people so they like the science • ‘Make them understand’ • Recruit people into the science profession • Inspire people about science Davies, S.R. Constructing Communication: talking to scientists about talking to the public. Science Communication Vol 29 No 4 June 2008 pp 413-434

24. Science communication also seen by some scientists as: • Enjoyable for scientists to talk about their work • A responsibility • Part of being accountable to the public • Empowering the public to discuss issues • A two-way dialogue: to talk about issues with the public and find out what they think • Finding middle ground on an issue • Coming up with new views or ideas

25. ☼ The public ☼ Science ☼ ☼ ☼ ☼ Communication ☼ ☼ Science Communicators Science Communicators as facilitators

26. New social technologies for dialogue between science and society

27. Communityengagement anddialogue

28. The sciencehorizons programme was the first public engagement exercise in the UK to focus on the potential future uses for science and technology, using a set of fictitious potential scenarios set from 2025. While light-hearted issues such as the future of fridges were on the table for discussion, more serious subjects such as climate change, health, genetics and the loss of the ‘human’ touch in an increasingly technological world were debated. Participants were broadly excited about the future for science and technology, particularly its capacity to help improve our health, environment and lifestyle. However, this was tempered by concerns about over dependence on technology, potential risks and worries that some technology might not be distributed equally to benefit ordinary people. The results of the sciencehorizons programme, funded by the Department of Innovation, Universities and Skills’ (DIUS) Sciencewise public engagement programme, were unveiled at the BA Festival of Science in York on 12th September 2007. It is part of the Government’s ongoing work to gauge the public’s views about particular issues well in advance of policymaking decisions. http://www.sciencehorizons.org.uk/

29. Latest News… *THE RESULTS ARE IN!* They are racing to get your votes, but for one scientist *time has run out!* The first scientist you have evicted from the site is... Heidi Dvinge The students have spoken! Thanks Heidi for all your hard work... and goodbye! Don't forget! The next eviction will be WEDNESDAY at 3PM! Ask questions, log in to Live Chat, and VOTE NOW for your favourite scientist... WHO WILL BE EVICTED NEXT? It's up to you! Welcome to I'm a Scientist, Get me out of Here! Like school science lessons meet the X Factor! Are you fed up of always having to answer questions in science? Here's YOUR chance to turn the tables. ASK questions CHAT to scientists and VOTE for which one gets a prize of £500

30. I'm a Scientist, Get me out of Here! 16th - 27th June, 2008 A web event which breaks down barriers and gets scientists and young people talking. Young People - get engaged with How Science Works Scientists - find out about how young people feel, their concerns and enthusiasms Teachers - get a ready-made, memorable way to teach HSW, where the work is all done for them For the two weeks of the event, young people use web technology they feel comfortable with, to 'meet' scientists from around the country. They ask questions and have live chats with scientists, and then vote for their favourite. The winning scientist will receive £500, to be used to publicise their work. IAS brings people together, gives young people a voice and teaches them about science in a fun and memorable way.

31. SCION GM Pine Trees TANGATA WHENUA INVOLVEMENT 2000 Consultation with Maori was seen as an essential part of the process. SCION made a commitment to engage with the local Tangata Whenua and consult them about the field trial right from the beginning. Results are being evaluated by scientists as well as monitored by the mandated representatives from local Tangata Whenua (Ngati Hurangaterangi, Ngati Te Kahu me Ngati Taeotu o Whakaue) Literally translated means ‘understanding’ (Maramatanga) of ‘growth’ (Tipuranga). The concept applies to the trees themselves, as well as the learning for both Maori and for Forest Research scientists.

32. Crop and Food Research and ESRFRST Funded Project 2008-12Coming to the Table – engaging scientists, industry, government and the community in dialogue on future food technologies • Explore social and economic context before committing to science investment • Futures workshop to scope future food technologies • Dialogue between stakeholders • Identifying preferred R,S&T • Input to strategy and decision-making

34. Contact Details: Dr. Karen Cronin Science Leader (Science, Technology and Society)Integrative Research for Sustainability Group Environmental Science and Research (ESR) karen.cronin@esr.cri.nz