---snip---
Which of the points from this 10-year old report - by someone who was, I
admit, a bit of a dinosaur on such matters - is a crime against humanity?
1.4.2 seems to me to be a pretty good objective. And seems to counter the
frothing at the mouth in your original message. That we don't always live up
to this high ideal hardly negates the sentiments.
---snip---
"frothing at the mouth"?? Have another look Michael. I think you may be
(over) reacting to a non-existent subtext that you have read into my
original message. The idea that my original message "dismissed everything
achieved in the past 15 years" (as you put it in another note) is nonsense.
Nevertheless, I think it's still a bit early for complacency.
---snip---
1.4.1 to contribute to the economic wealth and quality of life of the
Nation, particularly by drawing more of our best young people into careers
in science, engineering and technology
1.4.2 to strengthen the effectiveness of the democratic process through
better informed public debate of issues of public concern arising in the
fields of science, engineering and technology.
---snip---
It's not a question of which point is wrong. The whole point is that both
1.4.1 and 1.4.2 are perfectly valid and worthwhile but *incompatible* goals
for science communication: there is conflict between them. I don't see
what's so hard to understand about this.
In the past, Government policy on science communication and many public
engagement initiatives have assumed that there was no conflict between these
aims. As we've seen from this discussion, many science communicators *still*
don't see any conflict.
Granted, you can always find examples such as the random NPL example I came
up with in which the conflict isn't very important. There are also plenty of
examples where there is no conflict of this sort at all - not least the
pioneering consensus conference on GMOs you mentioned in another message.
Nevertheless, it's important to be clear if you are not sure whether you are
"strengthen[ing] the effectiveness of the democratic process" or "drawing
more of our best young people into careers in science, engineering and
technology" then your audience will be alienated.
Nanotechnology is a good example. Many publics have concerns about it. If
you set out to reassure them (to allow progress to continue) you might think
that you are "strengthening the effectiveness of the democratic process
through better informed public debate" but your audience might not. They
might feel that they are *competing* against a well-organised PR offensive
and their concerns will be squashed whether they have validity or not.
In the case of nanotechnology, this is well understood, in the UK at least.
There is lots of interesting research and innovative engagement activity
going on (e.g. 'Encouraging Early Public Engagement with Nanotechnology' -
the ESRC funded project) in which this precise problem is addressed.
What, precisely, is so threatening about the idea that 'public relations'
and 'strengthening the democratic process' are different aims? Why would a
country such as Brazil *not* want to make the distinction explicit in its
science communication policy?
Adam
-----Original Message-----
From: psci-com: on public engagement with science
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Michael Kenward
Sent: 09 August 2005 23:49
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PSCI-COM] Law of Popularization of Science
-----Original Message-----
It's a bit disingenuous to dismiss the PUS movement as just a few old fogies
who lasted 10 minutes. The muddled thinking of a decade ago continues to
have an impact. Those of us who can remember as far back as 1996 will
remember that the Wolfendale report had quite a bit of influence, especially
on the research councils. This is an example of the kind of policy document
that fails, in my opinion, to adequately distinguish 'public relations' from
democratic empowerment.
This is what it says:
1.4 The objectives of the Government's policy on public understanding are:
1.4.1 to contribute to the economic wealth and quality of life of the
Nation, particularly by drawing more of our best young people into careers
in science, engineering and technology
1.4.2 to strengthen the effectiveness of the democratic process through
better informed public debate of issues of public concern arising in the
fields of science, engineering and technology.
1.5 The main obstacle to achieving these objectives was perceived by
Government to be the relatively low status of science and engineering in the
eyes of the general public relative to other competitor nations. The policy
therefore is about changing public attitudes as a means to achieving the
objectives. (Wolfendale 1996).
Arnold Wolfendale,1996, Report of the Committee to Review the Contribution
of Scientists and Engineers to the Public Understanding of Science,
Engineering and Technology, (London: Her Majesty's Stationary Office)
---End Quoted (and cut) Message---
Which of the points from this 10-year old report - by someone who was, I
admit, a bit of a dinosaur on such matters - is a crime against humanity?
1.4.2 seems to me to be a pretty good objective. And seems to counter the
frothing at the mouth in your original message. That we don't always live up
to this high ideal hardly negates the sentiments.
1.5 is a report of someone else's views. Tells us nothing about the views of
Wolfendale and his committee.
____________________________
Michael Kenward
ABSW e-minder
Editor, The Science Reporter
http://www.absw.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
**********************************************************************
**********************************************************************
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
**********************************************************************
|