Michael,
It was already a rather long post (and I already did give an example). I
stand by the assertion that clarity about the communicator's agenda is not
generally a priority in science communication. An example off the top of my
head: it's not clear to me what the National Physical Laboratory are trying
to achieve by putting those posters about time measurement, etc. in New
Scientist. They're excellent posters and I'm glad they do it, but it's not
clear why they do it. I don't know, but I expect it's the Marketing and PR
department of NPL that produces them. I don't have a problem with this at
all, but it's an example of public engagement initiatives being run by PR
departments.
I was deliberately 'harking back to the old PUS days' because that's when
the UK started to grapple with building science communication into
government policy. Brazil can learn a lot from what the UK went through a
decade ago. If they don't learn from our history, I fear they are doomed to
repeat it.
It's a bit disingenuous to dismiss the PUS movement as just a few old fogies
who lasted 10 minutes. The muddled thinking of a decade ago continues to
have an impact. Those of us who can remember as far back as 1996 will
remember that the Wolfendale report had quite a bit of influence, especially
on the research councils. This is an example of the kind of policy document
that fails, in my opinion, to adequately distinguish 'public relations' from
democratic empowerment.
This is what it says:
1.4 The objectives of the Government's policy on public understanding are:
1.4.1 to contribute to the economic wealth and quality of life of the
Nation, particularly by drawing more of our best young people into careers
in science, engineering and technology
1.4.2 to strengthen the effectiveness of the democratic process through
better informed public debate of issues of public concern arising in the
fields of science, engineering and technology.
1.5 The main obstacle to achieving these objectives was perceived by
Government to be the relatively low status of science and engineering in the
eyes of the general public relative to other competitor nations. The policy
therefore is about changing public attitudes as a means to achieving the
objectives. (Wolfendale 1996).
Arnold Wolfendale,1996, Report of the Committee to Review the Contribution
of Scientists and Engineers to the Public Understanding of Science,
Engineering and Technology, (London: Her Majesty's Stationary Office)
Adam
-----Original Message-----
From: psci-com: on public engagement with science
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Michael Kenward
Sent: 09 August 2005 12:37
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PSCI-COM] Law of Popularization of Science
Lots of unsubstantiated assertions in this message which describes a
parallel world from that which I inhabit.
Any chance that you could back it up with some examples or some other
evidence beyond opinion?
In particular, I am puzzled by the statement that "Clarity about the
communicator's agenda is not generally a priority in science communication,
but it should be." That view harks back to the PUS days, a decade or so ago.
And even then only a small band of old fogeys really took that line, which
is why it lasted about 10 minutes.
____________________________
Michael Kenward
ABSW e-minder
Editor, The Science Reporter
http://www.absw.org.uk
-----Original Message-----
From: psci-com: on public engagement with science
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Adam
Sent: 09 August 2005 11:26
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PSCI-COM] Law of Popularization of Science
Any country developing popularisation policy must build a clear distinction
between public relations and democratic empowerment into any legislation. It
is tempting to think that it is the mere quantity of science communication
that is important, and not to reflect on the motivation for communicating
science. However, there are many different reasons people choose to engage
the public with science.
This may sound obvious, but policy in the United Kingdom has tended in the
past to assume that all and any science communication meets all and any
purpose - be it informing citizens, increasing the science budget, educating
the next generation of scientists, or whatever. Clarity about the
communicator's agenda is not generally a priority in science communication,
but it should be.
Public relations and democratic empowerment are not the same. In fact, they
are totally different but in the United Kingdom at least, science
communication is dominated by public relations and marketing departments.
They do good work but the fact that they are not always clear about their
motivation has caused and continues to cause serious problems. Ironically,
the extent to which the public trusts science has suffered as a result.
The twisted logic goes like this: science is good; therefore any initiative
that helps people to see that science is good will help people to make
rational decisions about science. No! Even if you accept uncritically the
premise that science is good, you can only advance debate by being crystal
clear about where your own interests lie.
For an example of the kind of disingenuous science communication I'm talking
about, take Walter Bodmer, one of the founding fathers of the public
understanding of science movement in the UK. 10 years ago at the Edinburgh
Science Festival he argued that, "to understand genetics is to understand
that scientists must be allowed to patent genes". No! Patents are politics.
Bodmer was conflating two very different ways of 'understanding'. (If I
disagree with Bodmer that genes are strings of DNA, you could say I have not
understood genetics; but what if I disagree with him about patents for
genes?)
It would be fine to advocate patenting genes and to put forward an argument
for it. It would even be OK for a research council such as the BBSRC to pay
for the public relations effort required to change the legislation if they
thought it was important to the community they represent. But if they
pretended that in so doing they were 'sharing science' rather than competing
with their detractors, they would be doing a grave dis-service to the public
understanding of science.
The greater emphasis on 'dialogue' in science communication helps a great
deal, but the communicator's agenda could still be clearer in most
popularisation efforts.
Best,
Adam
----------------------------------
Dr Adam Nieman
Sci-Five
5 Glendale
Bristol BS8 4PN
+44 (0)7764 197151
[log in to unmask]
www.sci-five.com
-----Original Message-----
From: psci-com: on public engagement with science
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Emanuella Chagas Jaguar
Sent: 08 August 2005 21:28
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [PSCI-COM] Law of Popularization of Science
Dear Listmembers,
I work at the Ministry of Science and Technology of Brazil, in the
Department of Popularization and Diffusion of Science and Technology,
which integrates the Secretary for Social Inclusion.
I am writing in the regard of the director of the Department, Mr. Ildeu de
Castro Moreira, who is also a member of this list. He has been discussing
with our Minister of Science and Technology about the possibility of
implementing a law of Popularization of Science in Brazil. Then, in order
to subsidize these meetings, we ask you all, if possible, to send us this
kind of legislation that it may exist in your country.
A Law of Popularization of Science is relevant to our country first to
stablish policies of approaching the scientific community to the general
public, second to define the society and communication means
responsibility and lastly, to raise funds to invest on popularization.
Thankfully,
Emanuella Jaguar
**********************************************************************
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
**********************************************************************
**********************************************************************
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
**********************************************************************
**********************************************************************
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
**********************************************************************
**********************************************************************
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
**********************************************************************
|
