Just to
remind you that the next London PUS seminar will be taking place today (Wednesday 22 March 2017) from
16.15-18.00 in Room QUE328 at LSE (map here http://www.lse.ac.uk/mapsAndDirections/home.aspx), when we will be hosting a special round table discussion on the topic
of Trust in the governance of science: a
growing tolerance of technocracy in Britain?.
The discussion will be stimulated with presentations from Professor Martin Bauer and Dr Jane Gregory
and comments from Melanie Smallman and Simon Lock – as well as the usual high
quality discussion around the table.
This seems to be a timely discussion, given recent concerns about public
trust in experts in the wider political context, so we hope you will join us. More details are given in the abstract below.
Our April seminar will be taking place on 26 April, when Federico
Brandmayr from the Université Paris–Sorbonne will talk about Competing
conceptions of science in the L'Aquila “Major risks” trial.
As usual,
all are welcome and there is no need to book a place. We hope to see you later!
Best wishes
Jane Gregory, Martin
Bauer, Simon Lock, Melanie Smallman
Martin W Bauer and Jane Gregory, with comments from
Melanie Smallman and Simon Lock
Trust
in the governance of science: a growing tolerance of technocracy in Britain?
The British Attitudes to Science (BAS) survey
regularly asks 2000+ citizens about their relationship to science and
technology. In response to the technocratic assertion ‘we have no option but to
trust those who govern science’, agreement has increased from 49% in 2005 to
67% in 2014. Over the same period, agreement with the statement ‘scientists
should listen more what ordinary people think’ declined from 74% to 67%; and
agreement with ‘the government should act in accordance with public concerns
about science and technology’ dropped from 81% to 75%. These changes are
statistically and potentially otherwise significant: they suggest the emergence
of a ‘tolerance of technocracy’ in Britain. We juxtapose this data with the
recent history of science communication, which has seen a growing influence
from commercial practice and increasing emphasis on managerial modes of
communication such as public relations and public engagement. Positive public
attitudes to technocracy suggest that science communicators have done well in
supporting the aims of the innovation economy. At the same time, science
journalists not only sense mistrust in science communication, but they also
have experienced a severe decline in spaces for ‘watchdog’ activity. In this
regard, science communicators have lost reputation and independence. These
observations raise questions about the relationship between trust in science
and trust in science communication, and about what science communicators could
usefully do in an apparently happy technocracy.