> these issues are not about the credibility of 'science' - they are
about the credibility of commercial companies and the technology they
wish the public to tolerate.
Let's not forget that credibility is not an absolute characteristic. We
are speaking of a particular community's perception of whether science
is, or is not a credible activity. Science is taking a battering and the
public do not see 'commercial companies who do science and technology'
as a separate category from 'science'. If commercial science hurts a
particular group of people, the public holds 'science' responsible.
Arguing that this is not fair is, in my view, not a solution.
>I have no problem at all about the USES of science (=technology) being
subject to decision by PR battles.
Technology is much more and much less than applied science. Gibbons
(1992), Vincenti (1990) and Rosenberg (1994) explain this.
>To use an analogy, I have no problem with PR battles being used to
decide whether or not to grant planning permission to build a new tower
block, but would be alarmed if they were the means by the credibility of
theories of structural engineering were assessed. I am not an engineer,
but I would far rather live in a building built according to theories
tested according to the arcane and rigorous processes used by engineers
than by who could command the best Tabloid headlines.
Engineers used theories of structural engineering and ergonomics to
design the car air bag. They did not listen to the PR and marketing
people, who would have said, (if they had been asked) that women drive
cars too. Designed around the ergonomics of male test dummies, car air
bags worked exactly as they had been designed to do. But they killed
women drivers at 15mph.
Listening to what the people say, not just what the engineers say, can
give us better technologies. People who work with the public may give us
tabloid headlines, I would argue that they can potentially lead us to
better science, too. After all, sometimes it is the work that is not
being done that is the problem with 'science' as a whole.
>I am afraid that I think that much of the trouble that has come the way
of science is due to people persistently presenting technology (building
factories, nuclear waste facilities etc) as 'science'. The OED defines
science as "systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the
physical and natural world through observation and experiment" - there
is nothing here about old oil rigs, fields of GM maize or
xenotransplants;
Would giving these things a different label ('technology') really help?
Or would it just shift the problem elsewhere 'I'm alright mate, I do
science. Give the funding cuts to the technologists'.
it defines technology as "the application of scientific knowledge for
practical purposes"- there is a clear difference.
Look further than the dictionary! The OED is wrong. While scientific
theory sometimes guides the experimentation process, the precise design
of an experiment, and the mapping of its results into a new product or
process are activities that cannot be deduced from scientific theory. .
. Science, at best, is of only limited assistance in determining the
specificities of technological design. [Rosenberg]
Ask an engineer where the 70% comes from in engineering design with
fatigue tests. The reply will not be about theory but practice.
Besides, the development of new technologies often gives rise to new
scientific theory. How does the OED definition explain that?
>The second is very properly to be decided by political debate, partly
because it cannot be decided by scientific criteria alone, but the
credibility of science, even to the wider world, can rest soleley on its
ability to be the best system for understanding the natural world.
Even if the science/technology split were helpful, this statement is
missing the question: whose world are we talking about here?
Science as an activity is deeply embedded in the systems of this wider
world. The work that is done reflects the interests of the powerful. The
work that is not done is not abandoned by 'scientific criteria alone'.
When we teach our medical students here, we are very careful to separate
the scientific aspects of what can and cannot be done (decided soleley
through rational consideration, observation and experiment)
This is the same rational consideration observation and experiment which
told my sister that her interest in engineering was evidence of a
hormonal imbalance? The same rational observation and experiment which
led the engineers to use only male test dummies when designing car air
bags?
We must admit that our values do enter into the evaluation of what we
observe and what we do. Else how can we guard against it?
and the ethical aspects of what should be done (decided by wider
political considerations, ethics committees, public debate etc). By
keeping the issues of science and uses of science separate, the
credibility of science is not damaged by someone losing an argument
about how they want to use it.
Sheldon photographed thousands of Harvard students to demonstrate that
'a person's body, measured an analysed, could tell much about
intelligence, temperament, moral worth and probable future
achievements'. Does this mean that the biologist's work only became
unethical when the accumulated data is used?
>Mathematics has managed to avoid these problems quite well. As far as I
know, no pressure groups are "anti-maths" no matter how much their
members may have hated the subject in school.
Marcus du Sautoy says that people resisted imaginary numbers for 200
years before accepting them.
This may be because nobody keeps encouraging them to confuse mathematics
with the decision to use a mathematical principle to build a missile or
an artificial heart.
He argues that Mathematicians and non-mathematicians resisted imaginary
numbers because they could not exist, and that the political environment
of the French Revolution created the social conditions that were
necessary for this 200 year-old resistance to be overcome. Alternatively
one might say that political decisions encouraged people to be confused
enough to accept imaginary numbers. A stroke of luck for mathematicians,
signal theory and microelectronics. . . !
>I have great respect for CB - but that debate was not about the
credibilty of science, it was about whether scientists should have a
legal right to experiment on animals.
One might also argue that it was a debate about values which required
scientific knowledge - about whether the injury caused by animal
testing was worth the gains produced by research. Only when public
scientists stood up and said 'these are the benefits' could this debate
happen, because only scientists could say what the benefits were. No
Blakemore, no dialogue.
Until Colin stood up, this debate did affect the public's perception of
the credibility of science. Until then, many people thought that
scientists were people who did unnecessary animal experiments, and
science was the activity which legitimised that. Because this was all
they knew, because science kept itself to itself and appeared to like it
that way.
>As you will have gathered, I fear that the conjunction of the S and T
in PEST is the root of some of our problems....
I'm not convinced that we solve anything by calling everything
controversial a technology. But we could change a great deal if we were
to think differently about who we are.
At the moment, we see scientists as being in possession of knowledge,
and ordinary people as people who need to be educated (PUS), talked with
(PEST) or involved (democratic science). By involving ordinary people in
science-related decision making, we can help create new knowledge in
areas that have been hitherto neglected, areas that reflect the
interests of minority groups who are excluded from science. By involving
ordinary people in technological development, we ensure that the
technologies of the future don't just serve male test dummies - they
serve us all.
By involving ordinary people in science and technology, we help ordinary
scientists benefit from lay expertise. If we are designing an integrated
transport system, we need the expertise of mothers and schoolchildren,
the partially sighted and the commuter to make it work. We call this
user-driven innovation.
Involving excluded communities in less 'applied' research might also
bring benefits, as public involvement in basic research could influence
the kind of work that is not being done. Take Helen O'Connell's 1998
paper on female anatomy, for example. This was a research finding that
could and should have been made many, many decades earlier.
If I were the top bod in a Research Council, I would bang on about what
I say in my research, which is that public involvement both influences -
and is influenced by - the impact of science and technology on different
communities in the UK (and world-wide). Systems of innovation both
mediate, and are mediated.
If we want the public to support our work, we need to:
- fund completely independent ('no strings') research
- fund scientists to do public engagement work,
- support science-media links
- involve people in S&T decision making (yes that includes policy too).
We might have to change a few things along the way. But if the
alternative is dwindling support and continuing distrust, would that be
so terrible?
Best wishes
Jenny Gristock
**********************************************************************
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
**********************************************************************
