Wk. 1 & 2: Public Understanding of Science

Progress in Scientific Literacy (M,S)

"Despite the large investment by the British government into scientific literacy, the House of Lords' report "Science and Society" published in 2000 shows that little has been achieved."

Central Question

"Does the public have a problem with scientific understanding and, if so, how should this be addressed?"

The rise of the Contextual Approach (M,S)

"This approach sees the generation of new public knowledge about science much more as dialogue in which, while scientists may have scientific facts at their disposal, the members of the public concerned have local knowledge and an understanding of, and personal interest in, the problems to be solved."

Steps for appropriate public scientific literacy (M,S)

- "Need to develop a specific model for the country & talk about science in the context of everyday people." - Don't want to make it controversial to argue that scientists are more knowledgeable on certain issues than lay people because they have engaged n extended study. They do deserve some level of respect - "Where science is being communicated, communicators need to be much more aware of the nature and existing knowledge of the intended audience. They need to know why the facts being communicated are required by the listeners, what their implications may be for the people on the receiving end, what the receivers might feel about the way those facts were gleaned, and where future research might lead." - "Communicators also need to understand that "people will pick up the knowledge they need for the task at hand, use it as required, and then put it down again. It will not be ready to hand when the survey interviewer next asks them if, for example, an electron is bigger than an atom."

CoPUS organisation (M,S)

- After the report, CoPus was set up. - "CoPus set in place a number of schemes to promote public understanding and appreciation of matters scientific" e.g grants, book price. - The hope was that by setting up this and other science promotion schemes "science itself would be a beneficiary of increased scientific literacy: the more the public knows the more they'll come to love it" - However, there was little to no change- after 1988 establishment of CoPus, survey of British public showed that 10% or less of those questioned were scientifically illiterate (depending on exact definition) - This was despite the fact that "public interest in science in contrast to knowledge remained very high, as did confidence in scientists themselves." - This was due to the deficit model

Social Context Model (M,S)

- Approach based on studies by Brian Wynne & Alan Irwin - "showed the importance of social context and lay knowledge as playing a significant part in how science was used by members of the public."

MILLER SOURCE

- Author: Miller, S. - Title: Public understanding of science at the crossroads - Year of publication: 2001

Themes & Ideas When Considering Good & Bad Scientific Practice

- Authority & Trust - Communication - Understanding & Perception

Authority & Trust

- Authority is the weakest form of evidence (You can get your credentials from anywhere and manipulate people) - Do not be impressed by solely authority because it is easy to contrive. - Investing in trust: We don't have the capacity to test things ourselves so have to put our trust in companies, regulatory bodies and other institutions and assume that they are transparent. - We assume they are morally responsible because society cannot function without this form of default to truth theory-- assuming most people are generally telling us the truth unless proven otherwise.

Thoughts/Ideas/Comments

- Can you ever carry out a somewhat accurate scientific literacy survey? - How do you define scientific literacy or test it if not by asking specific fact-based questions. - To what extent can questions that contextually apply science be useful in measuring scientific literacy? - The last section of the article advocates for avoiding paternalism & allowing the public to access uncertain and controversial science. -Theoretically, how do you do this without allowing for the development of radical anti-scientific/conspiracy claims.-- link to the internet & public sphere from last term & how you can create a bubble/community of e.g. flat earth/anti-vax claims . - How would you do this without 'reducing' the authority we give to scientists because of their expertise?

What Other Social/Cultural/Financial Influences Shape Science?

- Financial interests: E.g. If a group argues that industries should be nationalise to control emissions, other parties may say it isn't financially viable/won't make a difference to climate change. - Some may argue climate change is real but the human impact is minimal so it won't make a difference to change our behaviour. - Effect: People become complacent through cherry picking of data which worsens the situation. Policies based on false facts/ facts out of context will make things worse, - Science becomes politicised not only by scientists' pre-conceptions (as shown by Sur & De Beauvoir last term) but also because of politician's vested interests

Analysing Newspapers/Journalists' Use of Scientific Studies to Support Their Health Claims

- If you (a researcher) can't find the scholarly articles then it seems like the claims aren't valid. - If journalists copy and paste chunks of the texts into the article, will the public be able to understand/access it? The scholarly articles are not easy to read/aren't written for the general public. You need a certain level of scientific literacy to understand the studies even if you read them yourself. - Problem: You can't always believe what you read even if it is in a well-respected newspaper. At the same time you cannot always read the original studies because you may not have: the scientific literacy to understand the claims, the time etc. Thus we need to be sceptical and recognise the limits of your own knowledge.

The Limits of Journalism/Journalists

- Journalists need a bridge between the public's knowledge and scientific scholarly pieces while still fulfilling another role of being a journalist which involves make your articles interesting and possibly sensational, - Journalists have to balance between sensationalism and telling the truth which influences the public's understanding of science. - For public understanding of science, scientific education/literacy in school is also important as well as politics.

The Reality of The Scientific Process (M,S)

- Others e.g Bruno Latour - Showed importance of highlighting how the scientific process differed from the "hypothesis-experiment-falsification/verification method usually put forward in public as the way science progresses." - "Instead various social checks and balances came into play before what could be termed "reliable knowledge" could be obtained."

How is science politicised?

- Politicians cherry pick science in the interest of social/religious systems & their interests e.g. financial interests. - In a pluralistic world, you can believe what you want. However, legislation should/can only be based on what is supported by objective truth. - In the educational system, people need to learn what science is and how/why it works. If you have this, wouldn't cherry pick science.

Swings in public attitudes (M,S)

- Public attitudes to science shifted often post WW2 from periods of great adulation and expectation to disappointment and hostility. - Publication of Bodmer report - "Sir Walter Bodmer set out to popularise science telling scientists that 'they had no less than a duty to communicate with the public about their work.'

Understanding & Perception

- Publication bias can skew our view (e.g not publishing all the info about a study/excluding data for a better view)

Communication

- Rigging data can occur E.g. Pharmaceutical companies for example do trials against the placebo as opposed to the best drug in their market resulting in overwhelmingly good results

Deficit Model (M,S) -- as barrier to change in scientific literacy

- This is a model that assumes "public deficiency, but scientific sufficiency" - "This model adopted a one-way, top-down communication process, in which scientists — with all the required information — filled the knowledge vacuum in the scientifically illiterate general public as they saw fit." - "There was a flow of knowledge, from the "pure" source of science in the laboratory to a (somewhat tainted) Bowlderised variety that was fit for public consumption and was usually disseminated through the mass media." - However, this supposed deficit never got smaller (despite supposed flow of knowledge) - e.g 1988 survey- 80% interviewed interested or very interested in science, only 20% informed in area.

Science in the making vs textbook (M,S)

- Wanted the public to know that a lot of the science that the science there was controversy about/viewed as threatening etc. was of the "science-in-the-making" variety that was still being "socialised by the scientific community" - "Textbook scientific certainties rarely hit the headlines to grab the public's attention." - CAN LINK TO Paradigm shifts & conflict stage (Khun)

Avoiding Paternalism in Science (M,S)

- We need to avoid paternalism in science-- "only allowing the public access "safe science" that is the "trend and tested variety" and not that which is controversial & uncertain." - Jane Gregory- for public understanding of science also need-- "acknowledging the place of popularisation," particularly, and as is often the case with new, uncertain and controversial science, where it crossed disciplinary boundaries or where there are genuine public interest issues." - House of Lords report states the importance of citizens getting used to "scientists arguing out controversial facts, theories and issues. More of what currently goes on backstage in the scientific community has to become more visible if people are going to get a clearer idea of the potential and limitations of the new wonders science is proclaiming."