As a communicator and scientist who has passed an exam in science policy
making in the last 5 years, I'm with Alice on this one. Making science
qualifications - or policy qualifications - compulsory is not the
answer.
It isn't about qualifications: its about involvement. Yet involvement
requires motivation and through mechanisms such as the RAE, our
innovation system rewards scientists who speak only to each other.
Perhaps I am just an optimist, but I would like to think that many more
scientists would join us and choose to speak with other audiences -
including politicians - if this did not require them to swim against the
tide.
Best wishes
Dr Jen Gristock
SISM, Brighton
-----Original Message-----
From: psci-com: on the public understanding of science
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Alice Farrands
Sent: 13 August 2003 13:07
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PSCI-COM] Science communication with politicians
Dr Newman and PsiCommers,
I am uncomfortable with the science vs politics dichotomy established in
your email. Science-related political controversy, indeed, any
political
controversy, does not operate within such a neatly demarcated
battleground. Implicit in the email below is the notion that scientists
are impartial practitioners of a higher art, and politicians are all
engaged in a kind of self-serving, machiavellian process of
back-stabbing
and self-promotion. Having worked in Parliament, I recognise this as an
accurate sketch of some political actors, but it can equally be
appropriated for members of scientific and journalistic communities.
The
communications barrier to which you refer might become more permeable
once
it is acknowledged that scientific advice is political in origin,
content
and context.
Politicians are equally committed/ bound to a "questionning, uncertian,
sceptical approach" in their attempts to formulate effective policy or
responses to scientific controversy. Politicians are not required to be
scientific experts, that's why they employ scientific advisors. Much as
it
pains me to say it, politicians and policy makers are rarely stupid, but
they are generalists, not experts in molecular biology or genetic
engineering. The quality of the policy or response they can formulate
is
dependent upon the quality of advice they receive, and the clarity and
skill with which such advice is imparted. The onus here is most
definitely
on the advisors. The implication that science-related political crises
might have been averted if only political actors had understood the
scientific issues in depth is naive. Such 'crises' might also have been
at
least lessened had scientific advisors also understood the social
context
in depth.
However, as a number of people have pointed out, scientific advisors are
non-elected officials, and as such, are not publicly accountable. They
are
also neither impartial nor neutral actors, and bring to their advising
their own particular bias, worldview and vested interest, no matter how
magnanimous or utilitarian this may be. With high political and
financial
stakes in science as much as anywhere, I suggest that it is just as
important for scientists to appear to be telling "a coherent story" and
"to
produce convincing narratives" as it is for the spin meisters and public
faces. Scientific advisors play an important and potent role in
defining
the terms of a debate or controversy, so that what actually reaches the
committee table or the floor of the House of Commons, for example, has
already been shaped and contorted to fit a particular agenda. The
outcome
of a debate or the chance of a controversy being resolved is effectively
predetermined by the initial definition of its terms, usually by the
advisors, not the politicians.
Perhaps there should be a campaign calling for all scientific advisors
and
communicators to have passed exams in policy making and political
process
in the last five years?
Best wishes,
alice Farrands
********************************************************
Alice Farrands
PhD Research
Science and Technology Studies Department
University College London
Gower Street
London WC1E 6BT
[log in to unmask]
**********************************************************************
1. To suspend yourself from the list, whilst on leave, for example,
send an email to [log in to unmask] with the following message:
set psci-com nomail
2. To resume email from the list, send the following message:
set psci-com mail
3. To leave psci-com, send an email to [log in to unmask] with the
message:
leave psci-com
4. Further information about the psci-com discussion list, including
list archive,
can be found at the list web site:
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/psci-com.html
5. The psci-com gateway to internet resources on science communication
and science
and society can be found at http://psci-com.org.uk
**********************************************************************
**********************************************************************
1. To suspend yourself from the list, whilst on leave, for example,
send an email to [log in to unmask] with the following message:
set psci-com nomail
2. To resume email from the list, send the following message:
set psci-com mail
3. To leave psci-com, send an email to [log in to unmask] with the message:
leave psci-com
4. Further information about the psci-com discussion list, including list archive,
can be found at the list web site: http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/psci-com.html
5. The psci-com gateway to internet resources on science communication and science
and society can be found at http://psci-com.org.uk
**********************************************************************
|