Jon Turney is probably right. "Science and Society", for those of us who have
been around for a few years, sounds rather hackeyed. It is indeed reminiscent of
1960's sociological critiques of science and old woolly courses called "Science
and Society" (although I must hasten to add that courses called "Science and
Society" don't have to be woolly).
But COPUS's position is interesting. I am reminded of the university departments
responsible for public education which used to be called departments of "adult
education", and later "continuing education", and now "lifelong learning", with
each phase lasting about a decade. It is not necessarily a good thing to change
names so often in response to fashions which may prove ephemeral. It might be
wiser for COPUS to stick to its guns and its name, at least for the time being.
Dare I mention the Vicar of Bray? In contrast, the British Association for the
Advancement of Science has kept the same name for almost 170 years, despite the
temptation to add "and Technology". Nobody is suggesting that it should now
rename itself as the British Association for Science and Society.
Martin Counihan
jon turney wrote:
> Barbara Davies wrote:
>
> "Lord Jenkin, who chaired the House of Lords inquiry, reported strong
> resistance in scientific circles to his committee's recommendation that
> the term "public understanding of science" be abandoned in favour of the
> more open "science and society"."
>
> Where is this resistance coming from?
>
> I think the answer to Barbara's Third question, from Jenkin's remarks at the
> meeting to launch Ian Hargreave's report, is from COPUS - who apparantly do
> not wish to be renamed the Committee on Science and Society. Probably has
> too many associations with the radical science sentiments of the 1960s and
> 70s for those with long memories.
>
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|