Just catching up with PSCI-COM from the weekend, and this particular one worries me a great deal. My concern is not based in a personal view about the issues around arms manufacturers at Big Bang (though I will gladly discuss them over a pint, with anyone) but I am moved to raise several points about the nature of science communication and why the quality of debate on PSCI-COM really matters.
For me, debate on PSCI-COM matters because it enables us to learn from each other, to question our own practices and views, and, ultimately, to cause progress in the field. That doesn’t mean that there is no room for personal views on ethical/moral/social/political issues, but it does, to my mind, invite a degree of critical thinking about how such views might impact or inform our practices as science communicators. Why? Science happens in context; science communication happens at the borders between the scientific community and the rest of the world; and as science communicators we are charged with elucidating that context and negotiating those borders. I sincerely hope I’m preaching to the converted here.
I find in my own professional life that I am often coaching scientists and engineers to view their work in context and to ask questions about the hopes, fears, concerns, and aspirations people hold for the knowledge, tools, technologies, and advice that comes from science. And the context, be it social, political, environmental, etc., is often decisive when it comes to the nature of public views.
Rather than point-scoring, why don’t we ask: “What can we learn, as science communicators, from the concerns expressed by Hamza Hamouchene and 38degrees?”
What I take from this is that, as people working to engage with the public about science, it is vital that we consider what constitutes the use and misuse of any science. And let me be abundantly clear here, that the words “use” and “misuse” are not intended as synonyms for “good” and “bad”. In fact, my point is that it is not up to us to decide if “misuse” is equal to “killing” or “anti-progress” or “promoting discrimination against minorities” or whatever, but we cannot truly do our jobs (including making choices about who does or doesn’t bring a stand to the Big Bang Fair) if we are not asking what constitutes use/misuse for our publics.
I think this leaves us with two choices:
1) Ask the public with whom we are engaging what constitutes use/misuse
2) Make predictions about what constitutes use/misuse, based on our knowledge and understanding of the context
Perhaps choice 1 is the optimum and I’m sure those better versed in the literature than me could come up with some examples (please, do!) but it is not always possible given timescales and resources, and so we have to turn to choice 2, which is why I share Alice’s worry about political naivety amongst our community.
In the UK, we might, for example, say that any use of science that is illegal is a misuse of science and any legal use of science is okay by us. That may seem reasonable, but consider that the context is changing and our collective view may change with it. Does a government that forces us, without mandate from the electorate, to become customers of private profit-seeking companies in our legal and healthcare systems seem more or less likely to legislate for the good of the people or for the good of the corporations? Would/should this change our collective view on the relationship between legality and use/misuse of science? Probably. And, if that is so, we will have to change the conversation we have with our publics about the use/misuse of any science from one about legality to one about something else. I’d love to debate what that ‘something else’ might be, on this forum.
And folks, please be nice! We learn nothing except who to avoid when people choose to be insulting, dismissive, or patronising.
Cheers,
Nancy
P.S. If this is activism – bring it on! Lest we be at the behest of the discourses we seek to break free from.
From: Wynn Abbott [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 15 March 2014 23:23
Subject: Re: Big Bang Fair
Hi Jennifer,
I don’t disagree with everything you said below – but I hope I’m not the only person on the list who’s tired (like, really bored) of people using the term “rational” as their trump card in these debates.
It’s irrational to keep using “rational” as though all human decisions have a clear logic.
If you got out of bed this morning and put a pink blouse on – we could just say you like the colour pink, or we could say you’re a poor role model who subscribes to gender stereotypes – what’s the rational explanation?
Maybe in these kinds of corporate sponsorship debates one person’s rational is another person’s irrational. Don’t pull the rational card out – it’s a cheap shot.
Best,
Wynn
Wynn Abbott
Director, London Science Festival
Mobile: +44 (0)7543 658048
Email: [log in to unmask]
Web: www.londonsciencefestival.com
Facebook: www.facebook.com/londonsciencefestival
Twitter: www.twitter.com/LondonSciFest
Instagram: www.instagram.com/londonscifest
Important Notice - Disclaimer
This email is from London Science Festival. This email and any attachments may contain confidential information and/or copyright material. This email is intended for the use of the addressee only. Any unauthorised use may be unlawful. If you receive this email by mistake, please advise the sender immediately by using the reply facility in your email software and then delete the message. Email sent to London Science Festival may be monitored in line with current legislation and good practice
From: Jennifer Marsden [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 14 March 2014 18:51
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PSCI-COM] Big Bang Fair
So, rolls Royce is an arms dealer now? Deary me.
I have mixed feelings about this, after all, I thought this list was for rational people who work to promote fair science communication as opposed to activists who live in a world where science is only used for 'good'
Where do people on this list then draw the line? Any energy company that is not 100% renewable? Bar the armed forces engineers from recruiting? Oh dear, what about those 'evil' pharmaceutical companies. You just cut 90% of funding to STEM.
It's BAE systems, not al qaeda.
I'm a stemnet ambassador. I'm passionate about making the world a better place. But vilifying stem companies is probably not the way to do it. Perhaps unfortunately, that is at the hands of our politicians.
On Mar 14, 2014, at 12:23, alice bell <[log in to unmask]> wrote: