-----Original Message-----
From: Nick Dixon [mailto:[log in to unmask]] 
Sent: 24 March 2000 12:01
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: For moderation - report of Joint OST/Wellcome Trust research
mapping the public response to science


Dear All
 
the following notes were made by Andy Boddington at the launch at the BA of
the joint OST/Wellcome Trust research mapping public responses to science,
and are repoduced here with his permission. Apologies for the length of the
file and for cross postings, but I thought that you would be interested in
seeing them. The full report is expected to be published in April/May 2000.
Nick Dixon
Science Centre Network Co-ordinator
The Wellcome Trust
 

Understanding the Public? (1) Introduction


Debate at the Scientific Societies Lecture Theatre, London. 20 March 2000

This is the first of four messages. Last night, there was an interesting and
important debate in London. Key speakers were Lord David Sainsbury (Science
Minister) and Suzanne King (Wellcome Trust). The evening was chaired by Mike
Dexter (chief executive of the Wellcome Trust). Included a panel discussion
with the above speakers and Peter Briggs (chief executive of the British
Association) and Bridget Ogilvie (chair of COPUS).

The discussion centred on a new survey by the Wellcome Trust and OST: "A
review of science communication in the UK." It also built on the House of
Lords Select Committee report.

Why was the meeting important? Yesterday evening revealed a paradigm shift
in the thinking of ministers and funders about what public understanding of
science is trying to achieve. Indeed, it spelt the death knell of the
dreaded PUS word itself. It sets the stage for rejuvenating the public
understanding community but could mean the end of central support for many
things we have learnt to cherish and love.

In ten years time, we will be looking back to the House of Lords report and
the OST/Wellcome Trust research in much the same way as we look back at
Bodmer now. The story is in the following messages based on my notes and
recollections:

(2) My notes on Mike Dexter's introduction and David Sainsbury's speech.

(3) My notes on Suzanne King's presentation.

(4) A polemic from the public understanding bunker.

Then over to you!

Andy Boddington


Understanding the Public? (2) David Sainsbury


For those without the time to read the notes, one quote sums up the new
agenda. In the panel debate David Sainsbury said:

"As a whole, people are not anti-science. They are pro-science and think it
interesting and important. It is not about changing culture or altering
people's views radically, it is about addressing specific confidence issues
and that is what public understanding of science will need to tackle in the
future."

Understanding the Public? (2) David Sainsbury

Mike Dexter opened the meeting with an attack on "the awful term PUS, which
I absolutely hate. We've got to think of something else." He focused on
public mistrust of science and argued that this distrust is due to the terms
we use, "significance, breakthrough, risk ... My major concern is that we
have been targeting the same 25-30% of people who watch nature programmes
... We need to target the other 70% that feel excluded from the debate."

The Wellcome Trust study has highlighted six kinds of publics that we can
begin to engage with on "public confidence and appreciation of science."

David Sainsbury said that the Wellcome Trust (WT) and Office of Science and
Technology (OST) study is "extremely interesting and valuable. In spite of
all that is written, the British public is largely pro-science." The study
(hereafter called the SciComm Study) is a cornerstone of the major review of
science communication being conducted by the OST. It provides the UK with
best understanding of science's public of any country in the world.

The message from the public is clear: "Science is good for me and [good] for
UK plc."

He quoted some of the statistics from the SciComm Study:

* three-quarters of the public are amazed by science

* only a fifth claim they are not interested in science

* the public appreciates the need to invest in basic research.

But there is undoubted concern about the government's ability to control
science. There is concern about science happening behind "closed doors in
institutions. Scientists trying new things without thinking about the
risks." But most do not think that science is getting out of control.

There needs to be better communication between science and the
public-scientists should listen more.

There is a failure of confidence; this is focused on the system [that
supports and governs science] and primarily on the government.

People are pro-science but have concerns about particular areas. People take
a practical view-a balance of benefits and risks.

They are against GM foods. "But as soon as you get GM products that give
benefits, that may change. Think of heart transplants. They caused a lot of
concern and were fiercely opposed. Now they are seen as one of the greatest
benefits of modern science."

We should not be dealing with public understanding of science but with how
people see particular issues. We should reject the deficit model. It is
about public confidence in science. "It is not a deficit model but an
engagement model." It is not about good PR or marketing of results, it is
about a serious democratic debate.

The SciComm Study provides a springboard for the new inclusive agenda that
the House of Lords have demanded.

We will publish the report. There will be a short consultation period after
publication. We are setting a challenge for you to build an Action Plan for
the British Association Festival in the autumn.

Later in the panel debate David Sainsbury said:

"As a whole, people are not anti-science. They are pro-science and think it
interesting and important. It is not about changing culture or altering
people's views radically, it is about addressing specific confidence issues
and that is what public understanding of science will need to tackle in the
future."


Understanding the Public? (3) Suzanne King


A quantitative survey of 1800 members of the public. The report will be
published at the end of April. This is a report of work in progress and data
part-analysed.

A few headlines from the total sample.

* I am amazed by science: 75% agree
* science is making our lives healthier, easier and more comfortable: 67%
agree
* Britain needs to develop science and technology in order to enhance its
international competitiveness: 79% agree
* the speed of development in science and technology means that it cannot be
properly controlled by government: c. 40% agree, c. 30% disagree.

Six new publics will enter our language. The six public groups are derived
from factor analysis. They group together people with similar but variable
views and characteristics. [See methodological note at end]

[NB. It was accepted during discussion that the group names are problematic,
but we should stick with them until Suzanne comes up with a new set.]

POLITICOS
* 17% of the public
* high income
* self-confident
* support science for the benefits
* confident in regulation and society.
TECHNOPHILES
* 20% of the public
* understand science
* trust scientists.
* concerned about regulation and society's ability to cope.
SUPPORTERS
* 17% of the public
* self-confident
* support science
* trust society.
CONCERNED
* 13% of the public
* concerned about control.
* concerned about their ability to keep up with science
* know science is important.
SOCIALLY EXCLUDED
* 17% of the public
* young
* uninterested in science
* science is not important
* do not see any benefits.
NOT FOR ME
* pensioners
* uninterested
* know science is important
* concerned about control of science.

=====

Methodological note

It is worth teasing this how the groups are defined because some of the
audience were confused. As I understand it, the groups are based on people's
attitudes to science, i.e. their responses to a set of statements that they
were asked to agree or disagree to.

For example, "I am amazed by science." Agree/Disagree.

Suzanne then looked at who was in the groups and these show distinct
demographic differences. So, those in the "politico" group are more likely
to be in the high income social groups A/B. But being A/B does not
necessarily mean that you are a politico.

It is attitudes that define the groups not socio-demographic
characteristics.


Understanding the Public? (4) View from the public
understanding bunker. 


So, that's it then. Most of us have been wasting our time. The washed public
love science, though the unwashed are still a bit wobbly. But we are not in
a disaster zone of public understanding, public interest or public
appreciation.

It is time to trash the Van de Graaff generators, tear down the science
centres and build a pyre with all those pretty information leaflets.
Exploding custard, nothing! It is time for the public understanding of
science community itself to explode.

Perhaps.

There is no doubt that the House of Lords and the SciComm Study are the most
fundamental events in public understanding of science since Bodmer. There is
a resonance between the two reports (David Sainsbury called it triangulation
and included the Bioscience Consultation Study). There is now a harmonic
that calls for consultation, dialogue, listening, confidence building.

The new messages are
* consult, don't preach
* concentrate on building confidence not understanding.

Promoting a scientific dialogue with the public is set to displace
"promoting science and technology." We will move from public relations to
relationships with the public. Our agenda is not longer public understanding
of science but building public confidence in science. Our call-sign shifts
from PUSsy to CISsy.

Where does this leave the science communication community?

The infrastructure erected over the past decade is largely designed to
promote awareness and knowledge, and to embed science in our culture. This
is helpful to confidence, but not directly targeted at it. It is about the
science as a whole, not the flashpoints that undermine confidence in
science. With a few notable exceptions, the agenda has been dominated by
relationship between scientific research and the public, not by scientific
governance and the public.

David Sainsbury clearly pointed the agenda at scientific governance; can we
cope with this change? Although no changes to the government's policy on
funding public understanding of science have been announced, we can expect
them in the forthcoming science White Paper.

The new agenda will have little impact where public understanding of science
relies on its audience for funding, nothing need change. But those that have
a heavy reliance on the state (or the Wellcome Trust?), through OST, COPUS,
the Research Councils, etc. we can expect major change. Expect a switch of
funding from events that promote science to new mechanisms of dialogue and
confidence building. As Peter Briggs said at the meeting:

"I'm worried that the [funding] organisations will hold [the SciComm Study]
over our heads as something to beat us with."

Or, to use that well-known phrase, the person that pays the piper calls the
tune.

Andy Boddington