For those without the time to read the notes, one quote sums up the new
agenda. In the panel debate David Sainsbury said:

"As a whole, people are not anti-science. They are pro-science and think it
interesting and important. It is not about changing culture or altering
people's views radically, it is about addressing specific confidence issues
and that is what public understanding of science will need to tackle in the
future."

Understanding the Public? (2) David Sainsbury

Mike Dexter opened the meeting with an attack on "the awful term PUS, which
I absolutely hate. We've got to think of something else." He focused on
public mistrust of science and argued that this distrust is due to the terms
we use, "significance, breakthrough, risk ... My major concern is that we
have been targeting the same 25-30% of people who watch nature programmes
... We need to target the other 70% that feel excluded from the debate."

The Wellcome Trust study has highlighted six kinds of publics that we can
begin to engage with on "public confidence and appreciation of science."

David Sainsbury said that the Wellcome Trust (WT) and Office of Science and
Technology (OST) study is "extremely interesting and valuable. In spite of
all that is written, the British public is largely pro-science." The study
(hereafter called the SciComm Study) is a cornerstone of the major review of
science communication being conducted by the OST. It provides the UK with
best understanding of science's public of any country in the world.

The message from the public is clear: "Science is good for me and [good] for
UK plc."

He quoted some of the statistics from the SciComm Study:

* three-quarters of the public are amazed by science

* only a fifth claim they are not interested in science

* the public appreciates the need to invest in basic research.

But there is undoubted concern about the government's ability to control
science. There is concern about science happening behind "closed doors in
institutions. Scientists trying new things without thinking about the
risks." But most do not think that science is getting out of control.

There needs to be better communication between science and the
public-scientists should listen more.

There is a failure of confidence; this is focused on the system [that
supports and governs science] and primarily on the government.

People are pro-science but have concerns about particular areas. People take
a practical view-a balance of benefits and risks.

They are against GM foods. "But as soon as you get GM products that give
benefits, that may change. Think of heart transplants. They caused a lot of
concern and were fiercely opposed. Now they are seen as one of the greatest
benefits of modern science."

We should not be dealing with public understanding of science but with how
people see particular issues. We should reject the deficit model. It is
about public confidence in science. "It is not a deficit model but an
engagement model." It is not about good PR or marketing of results, it is
about a serious democratic debate.

The SciComm Study provides a springboard for the new inclusive agenda that
the House of Lords have demanded.

We will publish the report. There will be a short consultation period after
publication. We are setting a challenge for you to build an Action Plan for
the British Association Festival in the autumn.

Later in the panel debate David Sainsbury said:

"As a whole, people are not anti-science. They are pro-science and think it
interesting and important. It is not about changing culture or altering
people's views radically, it is about addressing specific confidence issues
and that is what public understanding of science will need to tackle in the
future."




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