 |
 |
Interesting (to me) how the language here has evolved since the Bodmer report 25 years ago. The recommendation then was that no-one should be awarded a PhD (say) without doing something for public understanding of science. I felt then, and still do, that this was unwise, a recipe for lots of poor quality efforts by the uncommitted. Some researchers, at least, ought to be left alone to get on with what they are good at - provided they pass other tests for funding such as quality, relevance, etc. Rewards, incentives and esteem for public engagement: fine. Making it mandatory: terrible idea. By the same logic, Research Councils, and other institutions, should be judged on their commitment to public engagement, individual researchers notsomuch. On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 11:53 AM, Sally Fort <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > "Doesn't the majority of the funding just come from the research councils, > which are not really controlled by the public?" > > Research Councils exist through public funding - from their website "*Research > Councils are the public bodies charged with investing tax payer’s money in > science and research"* > So if it's RC funded, it's funded by the public (via the government). > > The debate taking place here is entirely symptomatic of the issues - some > people genuinely understand the connections and the need to include the > pubic as a beneficiary and stakeholder of their work - and > indeed have directly experienced how liaison with the public can add to or > shift what's happening within their research. In other words it's embedded > in their practice. > > Others do it because it's a requirement of funders - for some this leads to > the above and they continue with PE afterwards, whilst do it because they > have to but feel it to be an inconvenience or a non-necessity, certainly not > an integrated element of their work. > > To me that demonstrates that PE is not yet fully embedded. Whether that is > best encouraged through criteria within research funding, or through > separate PE strands has not been proven either way but even on this list it > seems clear that some folks just won't do it if they don't have to - and > that is the crux of the issue. > > (declaring my interest - I'm the evaluation consultant for Manchester > Science Festival and one of the evaluation team for Manchester Beacon) > > Sally Fort > Consultant: cultural projects > www.sallyfort.com > > > ------------------------------ > *From:* Adam J. Christopherson <[log in to unmask]> > *To:* [log in to unmask] > *Sent:* Thu, 12 August, 2010 11:26:33 > *Subject:* Re: [PSCI-COM] EPSRC ends public engagement scheme > > On 12 Aug 2010, at 11:00, Mary wrote: > > > Aren’t they related? Keeping your RAs and technicians in a job, > especially if it’s a publicly-funded one, is surely linked to public > acceptance/understanding of what they are working on. Lose that and you > lose even more of your funding…….. > > > Is there any correlation between the public's understanding of science, and > the actual science that gets funded by public money? Doesn't the majority of > the funding just come from the research councils, which are not really > controlled by the public? > > > > From: psci-com: on public engagement with science [mailto: > [log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Francis Sedgemore > > Sent: jeudi 12 août 2010 11:53 > > To: [log in to unmask] > > Subject: Re: [PSCI-COM] EPSRC ends public engagement scheme > > > > > > "Or"? > > > > Oh dear! In presenting science communication as a chore to be set aside > when there are more pressing needs, you've just proved my and MK's point. A > brickbat it most certainly is, and a most offensive one at that. > > > Demanding that academics take science communication seriously is not really > going to work, since many academics are very much stuck in their ways. > Wouldn't a better approach be to put some effort into training > students/postdocs (the future academics) to understand the importance of > communication, and help them better communicate their research to the > public? Or does this sort of thing already happen? > > Adam > > > > -- > Adam J. Christopherson > School of Mathematical Sciences > Queen Mary, University of London > Mile End Road, London, E1 4NS > > [log in to unmask] > www.maths.qmul.ac.uk/~adamc <http://www.maths.qmul.ac.uk/%7Eadamc> > > ********************************************************************** > 1. To suspend yourself from the list, whilst on leave, for example, > send an email to mailto:[log in to unmask] with the following > message: > > set psci-com nomail -- [include hyphens] > > 2. To resume email from the list, send an email to [log in to unmask] the message: > > set psci-com mail -- [include hyphens] > > 3. To leave psci-com, send an email to [log in to unmask] with the > message: > > leave psci-com -- [include hyphens] > > 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.ac.uk > > 6. To contact the Psci-com list owner, please send an email to mailto: > [log in to unmask] > ********************************************************************** > ********************************************************************** 1. > To suspend yourself from the list, whilst on leave, for example, send an > email to mailto:[log in to unmask] with the following message: > > set psci-com nomail -- [include hyphens] > > 2. To resume email from the list, send an email to [log in to unmask] the message: > > set psci-com mail -- [include hyphens] > > 3. To leave psci-com, send an email to [log in to unmask] with the > message: > > leave psci-com -- [include hyphens] > > 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.ac.uk > > 6. To contact the Psci-com list owner, please send an email to > mailto:[log in to unmask]********************************************************************** > > -- Jon Turney Science writer, editor, lecturer. Author The Rough Guide to Genes and Cloning (2007) The Rough Guide to the Future (2010) blog(s) at http://unreliablefutures.wordpress.com/ and http://bristoljazzlog.wordpress.com/ www.jonturney.co.uk twitter: jonWturney ********************************************************************** 1. To suspend yourself from the list, whilst on leave, for example, send an email to mailto:[log in to unmask] with the following message: set psci-com nomail -- [include hyphens] 2. To resume email from the list, send an email to [log in to unmask] with the message: set psci-com mail -- [include hyphens] 3. To leave psci-com, send an email to [log in to unmask] with the message: leave psci-com -- [include hyphens] 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.ac.uk 6. To contact the Psci-com list owner, please send an email to mailto:[log in to unmask] **********************************************************************