On Tuesday 9th February, one of those groups, the Science for All Expert Group issued a report (click here to read the report), giving its findings and an action plan for a “healthy science and society relationship”.
The following is a comment from the Chief Executive of the International Centre for Life, Linda Conlon, on the report and its findings.
Science for All - a response from the International Centre for Life, Newcastle upon Tyne
We see Science for All's recognition that there is already much public engagement activity, but little coordination between these efforts, as important and timely but don't feel that this report goes nearly far enough. We would like to see it starting a process, rather than being an end result in itself.
We think it is very odd indeed that the report assumes all engagement will be done by practicing researchers and virtually ignores the role and importance of professional science communicators, and particularly the Science Centres, which collectively across the UK are visited annually by more people than attend football matches.
We believe focussing on researcher-led engagement misses the point and confuses engagement with scientists with engagement with science. This is an out of date view, as it assumes engagement is really about what scientists want to talk to the public about rather than enabling the public to find out what they want from science, which is what cutting edge public engagement is all about. It also ignores the fact that there is a whole spectrum of public engagement with science that is possible, from introductory activities for pre-school children, to intensive dialogue and co-enquiry projects with engaged adults. While direct interaction between scientists and the public is a good thing, for science to be truly for everyone there also needs to be opportunities for the public to engage with science independently from research scientists. This wider spectrum of independent engagement is something that science centres are particularly good at covering.
High-quality public engagement is difficult and time-consuming to develop and run. Researchers who do high-quality public engagement have correspondingly less time to do research, and ultimately become less-good researchers. Maintaining time for research could lead to engagement activities that are of lower quality. An emphasis on purely researcher-led engagement risks creating a culture where "just good enough" becomes the norm for engagement activity. Professional science communicators and other facilitators, who do this all day, every day, enable the pursuit of excellence for all participants in public engagement and their role deserves greater acknowledgement.
We also feel that the report doesn't really understand the position of science in our culture, viewing arts and sciences as opposites, with the consequence that science is thought of as an addition to existing cultural activity. We believe that science (its practice and its general appreciation) is itself a cultural practice. Science centres are the cultural institutions with a science focus, and should be recognised as such.
Cross-sector and cross-cultural collaboration is already active in North East England. The Centre for Life collaborates extensively with local universities, especially Durham and Newcastle, through the Beacon for Public Engagement, and is part of a cultural consortium of the major Newcastle and Gateshead Cultural Venues. It also is an active participant in national programmes and networks and works hard to put science itself on the cultural agenda.
Finally, the report sets out a number of follow-on activities and discussions. However, we feel that these are too tame and backward-looking and are very much based in doing more of the kind of thing that is already happening. They do not acknowledge the need for continuing innovation in the field, nor the leading role British science communicators have in innovating in this area. It also ignores the need to develop the use of digital technologies for engagement. Most importantly, it is also very disappointing to find that the opportunity to address the need for financial support for high quality public engagement is once again ignored. We feel that if the Government wants to see development in the field of Public Engagement with Science, the budget is needed to back up the words.
Linda Conlon, Chief Executive
International Centre for Life, Newcastle