Science and Society – From Monologue to Dialogue
Some years on from the publication of the House of Lords Science and Technology Committee’s report “Science and Society” is “Society’s relationship with science” still in a “critical phase” and what has been done to address the issues raised in the report
Policy regarding science-based decision-making and dealing with science-based issues developed rapidly in the years leading up to 2000. From the 1997 Chief Scientific Adviser’s guidelines on the use of scientific advice we have the recommendation to:
“Involve at least some experts from other not necessarily scientific disciplines to ensure that the evidence is subjected to a sufficiently questioning review from a wide-ranging set of viewpoints.”
However, by 1999, the ability of non-experts to open up debate was recognised. “The Advisory and Regulatory Framework for Biotechnology: Report from the Government’s Review” published by the Cabinet Office in May 1999 stated that:
“Most committees value input from lay members; it is often their questions which open up issues which experts might not otherwise have explored”
and by July 2000 the revised Chief Scientific Adviser’s guidelines stated that:
“It is important that sufficient early thought is given to presenting the issues, uncertainties and policy options to the public.”
Earlier the same year “Science and Society” gave further legitimacy and impetus to a more discursive approach towards science communication.
“… direct dialogue with the public should move from being an optional add-on to science-based policy making and to the activities of research organisations and learned institutions, and should become a normal and integral part of the process.”
Since 2000 the public’s role in science policy has remained in the spotlight. A year later the House of Commons report “The Scientific Advisory System” (March 2001) put public attitudes to, perceptions of, and engagement with, science-based issues at the heart of the science policy agenda.
“Public opinion plays a major part in forming Government policy, whatever the scientific advice.”
However, the programmes of many organisations remain in the much criticised “deficit model” as both organisations and individuals strive to understand how to facilitate public engagement with science-based issues and what this means for their work. Adapting to this new agenda requires clarity of language so that individuals are clear about what they are being asked to do.
Engagement, Dialogue and Consultation
Since the publication of “Science and Society”, the terms engagement, dialogue and consultation have been used freely and often interchangeably. At the same time “pure information dissemination” has been denigrated by some.
The term “science communication” also leads to confusion, as communication of “the science” is rarely the issue for the public. Rather it is the use of science and an appreciation of the position of science within public policy-making that matters to most people.
The following definitions attempt to clarify the process of science communication. We argue that not only is it crucial to understand the differences between these terms, it is important to identify the value that each brings to the dialogue agenda and that all require an understanding of the target audience.
Information dissemination is placing information in the public domain with no expectation of a response. Without information there can be no informed debate, thus there is a strong argument that information dissemination, as a monologue, underpins more interactive modes of communication. However, scientists need to recognise that information must address the public’s interests and needs and that individual members of the public have different concerns for a variety of reasons. In this sense it requires individual organisations to “listen” to the public to identify concerns and test out information materials for suitability. This is usually done through market research in the commercial sector.
Consultation is the formal embodiment of two-way conversations and should contribute to some decision-making process. It is therefore something that individual organisations undertake to address specific topics for a particular purpose. “Consultation” means “to seek advice from; to take counsel” and implies an interaction of views and a shifting of positions as each party comes to understand the perspective of the other. Hence organisations can obtain public input to their decisions following an exchange of ideas and information. The wider the range of people involved in the decision-making process, the better the decisions that emerge because they are based on a more rounded picture and draw on a larger pool of expertise. Non-“experts” often raise questions and propose solutions that “experts” overlook. The premise of genuine consultation is that no one view holds greater weight than others, but rather that both those consulting and those being consulted are willing to change their minds in response to information and debate.
Engagement is when an individual organisation stimulates interest in, and raises awareness of, science and science-based issues, opening up informal two-way channels of communication. To engage with the public, organisations must understand public views, interests, values and behaviour so that they can respond in an appropriate fashion using appropriate channels of communication. At a wider societal level engagement can involve many organisations to many individuals, and this is a move towards dialogue.
Dialogue is a society-wide concept. The role of the individual organisation is in generating and supporting widespread debate and contributing to the creation of a climate where people discuss scientific issues in the way in which they discuss other issues of public policy. Scientists may be talking with the public, the public may be talking with each other, there will be television and radio programmes, web chat sites, etc. with no specific end in sight other than that science becomes just another facet of life. Dialogue at a societal level does not have to be direct interaction between the same individuals. But people are now listening and talking about science in a much broader context. Decision-makers “listen” to the public’s views via many mechanisms, including reading the press, watching TV and conducting research. The media, at its broadest, reflects the public mood because broadcasters use various forms of market research to keep in touch with their audiences.
The model below shows that in one sense there is a “progression” from a monologue to dialogue culture for any subject. Science policy and the use of science in policy-making is moving into the mainstream where public views are integral to policy development, as in most other areas of public policy, from health to foreign policy. However, all modes of communication reinforce each other and play a role in supporting high quality debate. All must be based on an understanding of the audience or the public at large.
Current and Future Priorities
In our view the primary long-term role of communication about science to the public should be to support more informed public debate on science-based policy issues, from health to transport and agriculture to communications, so that better decisions are made.
However, whatever the motivation for communication, we have identified a few key priorities of the “science communication community”; namely:
- to support sound and effective decision-making
- public accountability;
- to promote an awareness of science as “part of the fabric of society”;
- to gain acceptance of science and new technologies;
- to recruit the next generation of scientists and engineers; and
- to promote an individual organisation.
The principles of understanding the audience and adopting the “right” mode of communication for the objectives apply. Some organisations will want to operate in all modes, others will choose a niche position.
Nationally, scientific organisations need to consider how their individual activities support each other within a broad portfolio such that the sum result is dialogue and high quality public debate to inform decision-making.
Acknowledgement
This article developed out of work carried out for the Office of Science and Technology (OST) and was published in “Science and Parliament” Summer 2002. The views expressed here are those of the authors and not necessarily those of OST.