Do we have to have an acronym at all?
Alun
----------
>From: "Ian Russell" <[log in to unmask]>
>To: <[log in to unmask]>
>Subject: Re: Replying to psci-com messages
>Date: Tue, Aug 29, 2000, 9:42 am
>
> (I'd prefer this list's reply-addressing to be changed so we can more
> easily use PSI-COM as a forum, not just for formal announcements.)
>
> PEST - Public Engagement with Science and Technology - certainly has my
> vote. I suggested PES in an email list a while ago.
>
> Here in PSI-COM on the 11th of May this year Andy Boddington quoted Sir
> Robert May using the phrase while presenting the annual JD Bernal
> Lecture at Birkbeck College. "This is the third, and most compelling part of
> my job ... public engagement with science and science advice."
>
> I think "engagement" is an extremely useful word. It is the main
> prerequisite for understanding, and yet is also an important end in itself.
>
> Engagement "with" sounds more appropriate to me than "in", and most of us
> don't mean "to".
>
> I agree we are probably stuck with "public", though Fiona Selkirk's
> reservations are understandable and the word carries a whiff of The
> Great Unwashed.
>
> Personally, I've ALWAYS reckoned that I was in the Public Engagement
> business, rather than the Public Understanding business and I know I'm not
> alone.
>
> But whatever we decide here, there is little hope that anything will change.
> PUS - Public Understanding of Science works top-down and PEST works
> bottom-up. Prestige and recognition inevitably go to the top, not the
> bottom. This is the reality of the situation and a fact of life.
>
> PEST is a good name for a guerrilla movement, comrades.
>
> Ian Russell * [log in to unmask]
> Successful learning environments are
> more exploratory than explanatory.
> * * * www.interactives.co.uk * * *
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|