It's a little difficult to respond if we don't know what scenarios
were developed.
Does anyone know which scientific organisations were
involved in the OPM workshop? I'd not heard about it before,
and I reckon to keep my ear quite close to the ground on
such things.
Cheers
Barbara
On 8 Aug 2000, at 10:25, John-Pierre ,Ms Karen wrote:
>
> The Office for Public Management has been commissioned by the
> Wellcome
> Trust to explore the future of the relationship between science
> and the public. psci-com members are invited to comment. Please
> send any responses to David Albury on the contacts below. If any
> one would like this as a Word attachment, please let me know.
>
> Karen John-Pierre
> -------------------------
> Information Officer
> Wellcome Library
> Information Service
> 183 Euston Road
> London
> NW1 2BE
>
> Tel: + 44 020 7611 8510
> Fax:+ 44 020 7611 8726
> Web: http://www.wellcome.ac.uk/infoserv
> http://www.psci-com.org.uk
>
> The Wellcome Trust is a registered charity No.210183
>
> The relationship between the public and science
>
> Scenarios of the future
>
>
>
> In October last year a workshop was held with a group of
> experts to map the
> dynamics of the relationship. The discussions at that workshop
> guided the design of a "Delphi" process involving individuals
> from a wide range of key groups and organisations - scientific,
> media, governmental, commercial, medical, educational, pressure,
> consumer and environmental - in determining a number of
> scenarios of what the relationship might be like in the coming
> decade.
>
> The first stage of the Delphi process invited participants to
> respond to a series of open questions on various aspects of the
> relationship. The outputs from that stage were used to formulate
> over 100 "statements" about the relationship. In the second
> stage participants were asked, by questionnaire, to give their
> views on the "likelihood" and "desirability" of each of the
> statements. A factor and cluster analysis of the results of the
> questionnaire has been carried and two scenarios of the future
> of the relationship between science and the public emerged.
>
> We are now inviting the participants and members of
> www.mailbase.ac.uk/lists/psci-com
> <http://www.mailbase.ac.uk/lists/psci-com> to comment on these
> scenarios. Comments can be sent by post (David Albury, Senior
> Fellow in Organisational Development, Office for Public
> Management, 252B Gray's Inn Road, London WC1X 8JT), by fax
> (David Albury, 020 7837 6581) or by e-mail ([log in to unmask]
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>). The deadline for receipt of
> comments is 15 September 2000.
>
> The comments received will be used to refine the scenarios. The
> amended scenarios will then be the basis for an open behavioural
> simulation of new relationships between the science and the
> public. The learning from the simulation will provide an
> opportunity for the Wellcome Trust and other relevant
> organisations to identify their future activities in this area.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <<...>>
> Some background
>
>
> Although two clearly different scenarios of what is likely to
> happen in the future have emerged, in a number of areas there
> was a consensus of uncertainty:
>
> * whether there are likely to be significant
> changes in the nature of science education
>
> * whether research charities and government
> will feel obliged to respond to public priorities for research
> funding
>
> * the relative balance of legitimacy and
> influence between local, national and supranational bodies.
>
>
> There was also a significant gap between what participants
> thought was desirable or undesirable about some aspects of the
> relationship between science and the public and what they
> thought was likely.
>
> * Whilst nearly all participants thought it
> was desirable that the public should have a positive view of
> scientific developments, there was a strong belief that in one
> of the scenarios this would not happen.
>
> * Many thought that scientists should become
> enthusiastic about public involvement and consultation. Few
> thought this would be the case.
>
> * A majority believed science education should
> change significantly, giving more emphasis to understanding the
> ethical and social dimensions of science and technology, helping
> the public make balanced judgements in the face of conflicting
> scientific opinions. Only a minority judged this likely.
>
> * Most thought that the public, and public
> priorities, should have more influence on the mainstream
> research agenda. Many feared that pressure groups would make
> certain lines of enquiry unacceptable.
>
> * In terms of key players in the relationship
> between science and the public: most, at least in professional
> groups, thought it desirable that these should be
> educationalists and scientists/technologists with the media and
> the internet having lesser roles, whilst the reverse was
> considered to be likely. Scenario 1
>
> Rational arguments and scientific information will determine
> public policy towards scientific development and technological
> exploitation.
>
> Continuing and greater efforts will be made by individual
> scientists and scientific organisations to inform the public
> about developments in science, technology and medicine and to
> routinely communicate their methods and results. Scientists and
> funders of research will understand better how to take
> consumers' views seriously, and external scrutiny of
> developments will become the norm. Those scientists who have
> demonstrated their grasp of the human and cultural dimensions of
> science and technology will play a major role in managing the
> interface between science and the public, and more scientists
> will form activist groups to promote "public understanding of
> science". There is some shift in emphasis within science
> education from facts and information towards thinking and
> reasoning skills.
>
> However, despite all these efforts, there will be continuing
> fear and lack of trust by the public in scientific and
> technological advancement. The increasingly negative attitude
> towards science will be accompanied by a decrease in the
> public's involvement in scientific debate. They will also have
> little confidence in regulatory bodies, perhaps due to those
> bodies' apparent lack of accountability. The 'anti-science'
> sentiment of the British public will persist, possibly driven by
> concerns over the potential risks that might be caused by
> scientific and technological advances. There will be strong
> feelings of scepticism about what these advances are meant to
> achieve. The public will continue to believe in the media-hyped
> 'scare stories', particularly as the tabloid press will continue
> to cover science and technology issues in a sensationalist way.
>
> Large multi-national corporations will be perceived as not
> having a real sense of responsibility to society as a whole, and
> this and other factors will hinder full debate on the social
> implications of scientific and technological developments.
>
> Scenario 2
>
> Everyone, including individuals, pressure groups and public and
> private organisations, will have more opportunities to
> participate in and influence the direction of scientific
> research and policies. With more people using the internet,
> communication will be easier and quicker, making it possible to
> hold debates and forums on issues between, for example,
> policy-makers and the public. In addition, focus groups and
> citizens' panels will be used more extensively to gauge public
> attitudes to scientific development and organisations will
> develop a range of techniques for public involvement and
> consultation. This will lead to wider ownership of the research
> agenda and the overall heightened public awareness of science
> and technology will facilitate increases in research funding.
>
> More informed and wide-ranging debate on scientific and
> technological issues encourages media coverage to highlight
> alternative opinions and undertake independent investigations of
> risks and benefits. Regulation will become tighter, more open
> and more influenced by different sections of the public and
> pressure groups. Financial institutions will be evermore
> cautious about investing in scientific and medical
> research-based companies whose products might provoke public
> opposition. Corporate research funding will also be open to much
> more scrutiny by more questioning board members. All these
> factors will result in some lines of research not being funded
> or pursued due to their potentially adverse consequences and
> public unacceptability.
>
> There will, in general, be greater recognition of the validity
> of differing views on the merits or otherwise of particular
> scientific developments, though increasing anxiety of a widening
> gap of influence between a 'knowledge-based' professional class
> and a semi-literate underclass and a continuing domination of
> channels of communication by large corporations. Although
> scientific research and product development agencies will be
> required to provide specified information to the public on the
> impact of developments being researched, and despite the fact
> that regulation and accountability will be more transparent, the
> public will continue to be less likely to trust statements from
> the Government about scientific and technological developments.
>
>
Barbara Davies, STEMPRA Newsletter Editor
Work: RDS - Understanding Animal Research in Medicine
58 Great Marlborough Street, London W1F 7JY
*PLEASE NOTE OUR NEW POSTCODE*
Tel 020 7287 2818 Fax 020 7287 2627
E-mail [log in to unmask] http://www.rds-online.org.uk
Home: Tel/fax 07000 750159
Visit the STEMPRA web site at http://www2.ifr.bbsrc.ac.uk/stempra/
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
