JiscMail Logo
Email discussion lists for the UK Education and Research communities

Help for PSCI-COM Archives


PSCI-COM Archives

PSCI-COM Archives


PSCI-COM@JISCMAIL.AC.UK


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

PSCI-COM Home

PSCI-COM Home

PSCI-COM  2000

PSCI-COM 2000

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

The relationship between the public and science: scenarios for th e future & invitation for comment

From:

"John-Pierre ,Ms Karen" <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

John-Pierre ,Ms Karen

Date:

Tue, 8 Aug 2000 10:25:26 +0100

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (195 lines)


 The Office for Public Management has been commissioned by the Wellcome
Trust to explore the future of the relationship between science and the
public. psci-com members are invited to comment. Please send any responses
to David Albury on the contacts below. If any one would like this as a Word
attachment, please let me know.

Karen John-Pierre
-------------------------
Information Officer
Wellcome Library 
Information Service
183 Euston Road
London 
NW1 2BE

Tel: + 44 020 7611 8510
Fax:+ 44 020 7611 8726
Web: http://www.wellcome.ac.uk/infoserv
         http://www.psci-com.org.uk

The Wellcome Trust is a registered charity No.210183

The relationship between the public and science

Scenarios of the future



 In October last year a workshop was held with a group of experts to map the
dynamics of the relationship. The discussions at that workshop guided the
design of a "Delphi" process involving individuals from a wide range of key
groups and organisations - scientific, media, governmental, commercial,
medical, educational, pressure, consumer and environmental - in determining
a number of scenarios of what the relationship might be like in the coming
decade.

The first stage of the Delphi process invited participants to respond to a
series of open questions on various aspects of the relationship. The outputs
from that stage were used to formulate over 100 "statements" about the
relationship. In the second stage participants were asked, by questionnaire,
to give their views on the "likelihood" and "desirability" of each of the
statements. A factor and cluster analysis of the results of the
questionnaire has been carried and two scenarios of the future of the
relationship between science and the public emerged.

We are now inviting the participants and members of
www.mailbase.ac.uk/lists/psci-com <http://www.mailbase.ac.uk/lists/psci-com>
to comment on these scenarios. Comments can be sent by post (David Albury,
Senior Fellow in Organisational Development, Office for Public Management,
252B Gray's Inn Road, London WC1X 8JT), by fax (David Albury, 020 7837 6581)
or by e-mail ([log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>). The deadline
for receipt of comments is 15 September 2000.

The comments received will be used to refine the scenarios. The amended
scenarios will then be the basis for an open behavioural simulation of new
relationships between the science and the public. The learning from the
simulation will provide an opportunity for the Wellcome Trust and other
relevant organisations to identify their future activities in this area.













 <<...>> 
Some background


Although two clearly different scenarios of what is likely to happen in the
future have emerged, in a number of areas there was a consensus of
uncertainty:

			*	whether there are likely to be significant
changes in the nature of science education

			*	whether research charities and government
will feel obliged to respond to public priorities for research funding

			*	the relative balance of legitimacy and
influence between local, national and supranational bodies. 


There was also a significant gap between what participants thought was
desirable or undesirable about some aspects of the relationship between
science and the public and what they thought was likely. 

			*	Whilst nearly all participants thought it
was desirable that the public should have a positive view of scientific
developments, there was a strong belief that in one of the scenarios this
would not happen.

			*	Many thought that scientists should become
enthusiastic about public involvement and consultation. Few thought this
would be the case.

			*	A majority believed science education should
change significantly, giving more emphasis to understanding the ethical and
social dimensions of science and technology, helping the public make
balanced judgements in the face of conflicting scientific opinions. Only a
minority judged this likely. 

			*	Most thought that the public, and public
priorities, should have more influence on the mainstream research agenda.
Many feared that pressure groups would make certain lines of enquiry
unacceptable.

			*	In terms of key players in the relationship
between science and the public: most, at least in professional groups,
thought it desirable that these should be educationalists and
scientists/technologists with the media and the internet having lesser
roles, whilst the reverse was considered to be likely.
Scenario 1
   
Rational arguments and scientific information will determine public policy
towards scientific development and technological exploitation.

Continuing and greater efforts will be made by individual scientists and
scientific organisations to inform the public about developments in science,
technology and medicine and to routinely communicate their methods and
results. Scientists and funders of research will understand better how to
take consumers' views seriously, and external scrutiny of developments will
become the norm. Those scientists who have demonstrated their grasp of the
human and cultural dimensions of science and technology will play a major
role in managing the interface between science and the public, and more
scientists will form activist groups to promote "public understanding of
science". There is some shift in emphasis within science education from
facts and information towards thinking and reasoning skills.

However, despite all these efforts, there will be continuing fear and lack
of trust by the public in scientific and technological advancement. The
increasingly negative attitude towards science will be accompanied by a
decrease in the public's involvement in scientific debate. They will also
have little confidence in regulatory bodies, perhaps due to those bodies'
apparent lack of accountability. The 'anti-science' sentiment of the British
public will persist, possibly driven by concerns over the potential risks
that might be caused by scientific and technological advances. There will be
strong feelings of scepticism about what these advances are meant to
achieve. The public will continue to believe in the media-hyped 'scare
stories', particularly as the tabloid press will continue to cover science
and technology issues in a sensationalist way.

Large multi-national corporations will be perceived as not having a real
sense of responsibility to society as a whole, and this and other factors
will hinder full debate on the social implications of scientific and
technological developments.

Scenario 2

Everyone, including individuals, pressure groups and public and private
organisations, will have more opportunities to participate in and influence
the direction of scientific research and policies. With more people using
the internet, communication will be easier and quicker, making it possible
to hold debates and forums on issues between, for example, policy-makers and
the public. In addition, focus groups and citizens' panels will be used more
extensively to gauge public attitudes to scientific development and
organisations will develop a range of techniques for public involvement and
consultation. This will lead to wider ownership of the research agenda and
the overall heightened public awareness of science and technology will
facilitate increases in research funding.

More informed and wide-ranging debate on scientific and technological issues
encourages media coverage to highlight alternative opinions and undertake
independent investigations of risks and benefits. Regulation will become
tighter, more open and more influenced by different sections of the public
and pressure groups. Financial institutions will be evermore cautious about
investing in scientific and medical research-based companies whose products
might provoke public opposition. Corporate research funding will also be
open to much more scrutiny by more questioning board members. All these
factors will result in some lines of research not being funded or pursued
due to their potentially adverse consequences and public unacceptability.

There will, in general, be greater recognition of the validity of differing
views on the merits or otherwise of particular scientific developments,
though increasing anxiety of a widening gap of influence between a
'knowledge-based' professional class and a semi-literate underclass and a
continuing domination of channels of communication by large corporations.
Although scientific research and product development agencies will be
required to provide specified information to the public on the impact of
developments being researched, and despite the fact that regulation and
accountability will be more transparent, the public will continue to be less
likely to trust statements from the Government about scientific and
technological developments.




%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998


JiscMail is a Jisc service.

View our service policies at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/ and Jisc's privacy policy at https://www.jisc.ac.uk/website/privacy-notice

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager