Can't help adding my thoughts to this discussion.

Interesting to compare our situation with that in Australia, where 'quasi
government' science organisations such as CSIRO (the national research body)
and the Bureau of Meteorology routinely employ top-level science
communicators in their marketing departments, who effectively add 'spin'.
They don't call it this though - they call it communicating with their
audience, typically the Australian public and media. It also isn't perceived
so much as spin - probably because the concept is not such a dominant
social/political force, and the national media is in general far less
aggressive than it is here.

What Australia does have though is a high level of dependence on its
agricultural export markets - and it is fairly ruthless in introducing new
technologies which might improve or preserve output. Introductions of
foreign species such as the cane toad, the rabbit calicivirus and
myxomatosis virus, and of GM food and cotton crops are reasonably frequent -
sometimes with disastrous or potentially disastrous consequences - yet these
potential PR nightmares seem to be artfully managed.

Thinking about it, these organisations do a very clever thing. They use
passionate people to market themselves, who both understand the science and
who are exceptionally good at communicating its opportunities, its relative
value and the risks vs the benefits embedded in it. Basically, they don't
have to compromise the science - but they do have to explain it clearly and
with a force (usually) equivalent to or greater than anything the opposition
can drum up.

As we all know, scientifically literate lobby groups can be a powerful
political force - as can a population who resent having new technologies
introduced without a full and frank discussion of where the benefits and
risks actually lie. Let's see charismatic, articulate, media-savvy science
and science communication graduates working in marketing and PR departments
- and they are out there, check out the sales reps used by medical and
pharmaceutical companies, and the journos who write for New Scientist, for
example - and we might possibly see a different public face emerging for our
quasi gov organisations, too

Hope this input inspires vigorous and prolonged debate...

Cheers,

BC

--
Bobby Cerini
Consultant in Science Communication

e: [log in to unmask]
t: 01225 840 389
m: 0792742738



------------------------------

Date:    Tue, 4 Nov 2003 08:30:25 +0000
From:    Stephen White <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: What scientists get up to (was RE: [PSCI-COM] advice for degree
course?)

I wonder if part of the answer to Mike's query is that the Research
Council's are 'part of Government', quasi civil service and quasi civil
servants therefore they take a quite natural line of trying hard not to
openly criticise the hand that feeds it. Another key problem is that those
that attack 'science' often do so from an ideological stand point and the
scientific establishment can, and must, only use evidence drawn from
research and experimentation in defence - so, if no research evidence
exists then science looks weak, obfuscatory and prevaricating.
There are, of course, organisations that do take on the 'protecting role'
that Mike appears to advocate - the Royal Society (increasingly), Save
British Science, UUK (very recent reports on split between teaching and
research funding) and mags like New Scientist and Nature. Everyone one of
those, and the Research Councils, could do more -  it always comes down to
political (small 'p') will, resources and expertise, but first of all
'science' has to recognise that it has a problem (if it does and I, for one
am not convinced).
Hope that helps a bit.
Cheers
Stephen White
British Psychological Society

**********************************************************************

1. To suspend yourself from the list, whilst on leave, for example,
send an email to [log in to unmask] with the following message:

set psci-com nomail

2. To resume email from the list, send the following message:

set psci-com mail

3. To leave psci-com, send an email to [log in to unmask] with the message:

leave psci-com

4. Further information about the psci-com discussion list, including list archive,
can be found at the list web site: http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/psci-com.html

5. The psci-com gateway to internet resources on science communication and science
and society can be found at http://psci-com.org.uk
**********************************************************************