S802_3 Science and the public

Science promotion

About this free course

This free course provides a sample of postgraduate study in Science: http://www.open.ac.uk/courses/find/science.

This version of the content may include video, images and interactive content that may not be optimised for your device.

You can experience this free course as it was originally designed on OpenLearn, the home of free learning from The Open University
- www.open.edu/openlearn/science-maths-technology/science/health-sciences/science-promotion/content-section-0.

There you’ll also be able to track your progress via your activity record, which you can use to demonstrate your learning.

The Open University, Walton Hall, Milton Keynes, MK7 6AA

Copyright © 2016 The Open University

Intellectual property

Unless otherwise stated, this resource is released under the terms of the Creative Commons Licence v4.0 http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/deed.en_GB. Within that The Open University interprets this licence in the following way: www.open.edu/openlearn/about-openlearn/frequently-asked-questions-on-openlearn. Copyright and rights falling outside the terms of the Creative Commons Licence are retained or controlled by The Open University.
Please read the full text before using any of the content.

We believe the primary barrier to accessing high-quality educational experiences is cost, which is why we aim to publish as
much free content as possible under an open licence. If it proves difficult to release content under our preferred Creative
Commons licence (e.g. because we can’t afford or gain the clearances or find suitable alternatives), we will still release
the materials for free under a personal end-user licence.

This is because the learning experience will always be the same high quality offering and that should always be seen as positive
– even if at times the licensing is different to Creative Commons.

When using the content you must attribute us (The Open University) (the OU) and any identified author in accordance with the
terms of the Creative Commons Licence.

The Acknowledgements section is used to list, amongst other things, third party (Proprietary), licensed content which is not
subject to Creative Commons licensing. Proprietary content must be used (retained) intact and in context to the content at
all times.

The Acknowledgements section is also used to bring to your attention any other Special Restrictions which may apply to the
content. For example there may be times when the Creative Commons Non-Commercial Sharealike licence does not apply to any
of the content even if owned by us (The Open University). In these instances, unless stated otherwise, the content may be
used for personal and non-commercial use.

We have also identified as Proprietary other material included in the content which is not subject to Creative Commons Licence. These
are OU logos, trading names and may extend to certain photographic and video images and sound recordings and any other material
as may be brought to your attention.

Unauthorised use of any of the content may constitute a breach of the terms and conditions and/or intellectual property laws.

We reserve the right to alter, amend or bring to an end any terms and conditions provided here without notice.

All rights falling outside the terms of the Creative Commons licence are retained or controlled by The Open University.

Head of Intellectual Property, The Open University

Designed and edited by The Open University

978-1-4730-1200-4 (.epub)
978-1-4730-1968-3 (.kdl)

Contents

- Introduction

- Learning outcomes

- 1 Starting to investigate science promotion

- 1.1 The political climate

- 1.2 Defining science promotion

- 2 Joining in

- 2.1 Institutional science promotion events

- 2.2 ‘Go See’ science promotion events

- 2.3 ‘Go Say’ science promotion events

- 2.4 ‘Go Use’ science promotion events

- 2.5 Public engagement

- 3 The value of institutional science promotion events

- 4 D-I-Y science: independently engaging with science

- 5 Public learning agendas

- 6 Promoting science promotion: the move from deficit to dialogue

- 7 Conclusions

- Keep on learning

- References

- Acknowledgements

Introduction

For many years, the view that dominated the science–public realm was that if only ‘the public’ were educated more, they would
better appreciate the intrinsic value of science in their lives. Moreover, under this approach, people were too often seen
as ‘empty vessels’ waiting to be filled with scientific knowledge that was transmitted one-way from experts to citizens –
an idea that you will recognise as the ‘deficit model’ of how ‘the public’ understands science. With a few exceptions, most
commentators and policy makers now see the situation differently: it is widely acknowledged that science is not so much ‘(mis)understood’
as ‘understood in context’.

This raises issues of intention and achievement – whether practice reflects purpose – and how ‘success’ is recognised and
evaluated. In this course, a critical assessment will be made of how and why science is actively promoted to adults.

This OpenLearn course provides a sample of postgraduate study in Science.

Learning outcomes

After studying this course, you should be able to:

- demonstrate an awareness of the issues surrounding public understanding of science

- engage with some of the debates surrounding this topic.

1 Starting to investigate science promotion

1.1 The political climate

You may have read a lot about recent political moves to involve the public in science policy making. Some commentators, such
as Alan Irwin and Brian Wynne, are in favour of it, while others, such as Lewis Wolpert or Richard Dawkins, are circumspect
or even hostile to involving the public in science. However, it is generally agreed that increasing public engagement with
science is important and worthwhile, with tangible societal value (in other words it has value for experts, policy makers
and other stakeholders, as well as the general public).

The UK Government’s White Paper called ‘Excellence and Opportunity’ (written in response to the seminal House of Lords Select
Committee on Science and Technology’s Third Report in 2000) sums up the main argument for greater public engagement, when
it says:

science is too important to be left only to scientists ... When science raises profound ethical and social issues, the whole
of society needs to take part in the debate.

(Office of Science and Technology, 2000, p. 27)

This excerpt implies that greater public engagement in scientific dialogue is needed: it is important for people not otherwise
involved to ‘take part in the debate’. It is possible to unpack this statement and ask whether their Lordships really mean
the ‘whole’ of society should take part, and whether only ‘profound social and ethical issues’ should be debated – with presumably
some other issues off limits. These points aside, however, the overall message is that there is support within political circles
for an increased public engagement with science. Of course, what is less certain is the extent to which a commitment to the
principle of public engagement is shared by those scientists and policy makers at the sharp end of public involvement – there
can be a world of difference between intended policy and actual practice!

The agenda of public engagement extends beyond the UK, and later in this course we will look at how it is articulated within
the EU and elsewhere. Indeed, the EU influence is particularly important to the UK, since it obliges the UK Government to
an extra layer of commitment – they need to realise both home-grown and pan-European aspirations. Resonant of the House of Lords’ sentiments quoted above, the 2002 EU Science and Society Action
Plan states that:

If scientific and technological progress is to meet the needs of Europe's citizens and regain their support, they will need
to have information that is understandable and of a high quality, as well as ready access to this specific culture.

(EU Science and Society Action Plan, 2002, Section 1.1)

It is worth reflecting on what this might mean in practice. Assuming that the phrase ‘ready access to this specific culture’
means ‘ready access to scientific culture’, then the EU Science and Society Action Plan is asking for a higher level of public involvement. Later parts of
this course will look at whether these aspirations encourage a wide-ranging approach and thus create new opportunities for
public engagement and science outreach. It is perhaps worth noting that literature on this subject is often ambivalent about
distinguishing between ‘access’, ‘engagement’ and ‘outreach’, and uses the terms interchangeably. In short, these terms indicate
an enhanced relationship between science and society, and not the belief that people should, for example, be able to walk
off the streets and into a laboratory or access raw scientific data at will.

Whilst science can be accessed through means such as formal education or media coverage, this course will look at the extent
to which it is done via science promotion events. It is a huge task to consider all the different forms of science outreach
in the UK, so this course will consider some particular ones. Specifically, it will concentrate on events that people need
to actively seek out and then apply themselves to. In other words, it will not look at the popularisation of science through
books, magazines or the internet, or at how the mass media might be used to promote science. Brief mention will be made of
science museums and centres (see, for example, Reading 2), many of which engage in science promotion activities, but these
will not be discussed in detail because they are established institutions and not commissioned events.

1.2 Defining science promotion

A basic definition of science promotion would be useful here: in the context of this course it means putting forward the benefits
of science by motivating and engaging non-scientists. You may be aware of the sociological argument that science is open to
social influences and constraints, and it is worth bearing this in mind when thinking about whether the benefits of science
are necessarily the same for everyone. Likewise, you will need to remember that the public is not a homogeneous mass with
uniform interests and understandings. In which case, you might ask if the argument made in the House of Lords’ report is achievable
– in other words, whether ‘the whole of society’ can take part in debates and be meaningfully engaged with science.

Moreover, perhaps we should consider whether the government has a particular agenda on public involvement in contentious scientific
issues, and whether any political motives define priorities. Is greater effort put into promoting ‘science in general’ rather
than some controversial ‘science in particular’? (For example, might science promotion events explain plant genetics, but
overlook the debate about whether genetically modified crops should be designed specifically for alleviating food shortages
in developing countries?) Or is it possible that the scientific community commands exceptional influence over the science
promotion agenda, with events thus representing their professional priorities rather than the ethos of public engagement and
debate?

Gregory and Miller (1998) in Science in Public warn that the outcomes of science promotion are not necessarily straightforward:

Governments, the scientific community, and business interests have all offered the public new opportunities to participate
in scientific events, be they celebratory festivals or critical enquiries into matters of public policy. [but] ... These tensions
are not always apparent: the agendas at work are often tacit, and the public’s perceptions of and reactions to them are difficult
to assess.

(Gregory and Miller, 1998, p. 220)

Of course, this was written before 2000, when the House of Lords report was published and, by the end of this free course,
you should be able to evaluate the validity of these quotes in the light of recent changes.

There are a number of ways to try and address these issues. The analytical method used in this course is to try and separate
‘institutional’ and ‘independent’ ways of promoting science, to see what aspects of science they emphasise and what techniques
they use.

- Events are categorised as institutional if they need some kind of support from an established institution in order to exist – support usually in the form of financial,
human and technical resources.

- Events categorised as independent are those where public engagement is on a non-institutional, autonomous basis – a do-it-yourself approach, so to speak.

This distinction is made to try and identify the roles played by ‘top-down’ political and institutional impetus versus those
played by individual and ‘bottom-up’ impetus. It might be concluded that any such impetus, and the vested interests that may
accompany it, makes either no difference or perhaps some difference to what is being promoted. However, you should remember
two important caveats:

1. These categories are just for the purpose of this course and should not be taken as rigid or undisputed divisions (an overlap
could occur, for example, when amateur ‘independent’ astronomers contribute to local events as part of National Astronomy
Week).

2. No matter how well an event is organised using institutional resources, its reception cannot be easily predicted. Participants
might accept the message that is being delivered, or might disagree strongly, and/or be apathetic to certain aspects whilst
being enthusiastic about others.

We hope this analysis will help you see if institutional support is necessary for science promotion to be successful – however ‘success’ may be defined – or whether people can engage just as well with
science through other, more self-determined means. Hence, the next two sections look at the merits and drawbacks of two very
different styles of science promotion opportunities for adults.

2 Joining in

2.1 Institutional science promotion events

Nowadays, engaging with science through an institutional science promotion event can be quite straightforward. You can find
out about such events by, for example, reading posters in your local library, watching a science documentary on TV or browsing
the internet. The range of such outreach events is remarkable – from long-standing mainstream programmes such as the Royal
Society Christmas lectures on TV and the annual BA (British Association for the Advancement of Science) Science Week, to more
unconventional activities such as the controversial ‘Bodyworks’ exhibition of cadavers and the ‘Science on the Buses’ scheme.
Despite their different techniques, these all exist, at least in part, to promote science.

Part of analysing science promotion as a phenomenon is to ask why institutions choose to support these events, and whether
there is a recognisable ‘message’ that can be given to a target group. In order to begin answering these questions, it is
worth looking briefly at the organisations that regularly back such institutional events.

UK government funding for science promotion at the time of writing (2006) came mostly through the then Department of Trade
and Industry (DTI), especially its Office of Science and Technology (OST). Since the 1990s, there has been increasing deregulation
in many areas of governance, and hence a greater emphasis on realising policy through non-state action and responsibility.
Thus the government fulfils its political mandate for science promotion and engagement through the OST, which gives financial
support to other institutions. In 2006, the money went primarily to the grants scheme called ‘Sciencewise’, for research into
public dialogue best practice, and to the BA.

Sciencewise grants, established in 2004, are for projects that help facilitate dialogue between the public, the scientific
community and policy makers – dialogue that can then feed into public policy decisions. Projects funded recently include:

- a research group looking at public engagement with nanotechnology;

- a workshop series to discuss a new model of dialogue called ‘Convergent Engagement’, and how it might inform changes to the
BA Festival of Science;

- a ‘Science Communication Working Lunch’ series to facilitate the sharing of good practice in public engagement and dialogue.

The BA is a charity, set up in 1831, that aims (amongst other things) to ‘obtain more general attention for the objects of
science and the removal of any disadvantages of a public kind that may impede its progress’. Its modern remit is to encourage
a more open science–society relationship so that science and technology are better received. Its science promotion events
are sponsored not only by national government agencies but also by a wide range of benefactors, including local councils,
media organisations, industry, research and professional interest groups.

Two other long-established charitable groups lead the science promotion field:

- the Wellcome Trust was created in 1936 to fund research that improves human and animal health, and this now includes activities
to promote public engagement with science;

- the Nuffield Foundation was established in 1943 to improve social well being by encouraging creative research.

Their work in the Public Engagement in Science and Technology (PEST) field is now often cooperative – for example they often
join up with NESTA (the National Endowment for Science, Technology and Arts) and the Millennium Commission, which are both
National Lottery funded bodies and principal sponsors of PEST events.

Perhaps not surprisingly, there appears to be a close relationship between long-established charitable organisations from
within the scientific community and recently formed government agencies. In the following sections, we will attempt to evaluate
why these organisations, the government, and others want to run science promotion events. For now it seems useful to look at
how they do this. Although these are certainly not rigorous terms, it might be useful to group these events according to three
idioms: ‘Go See’, ‘Go Say’, and ‘Go Use’. They can be defined thus:

- Go See events involve practical demonstrations. People can watch experiments or machines in action and hear scientists explain their
ideas and theories. The session may be organised to allow the exchange of ideas. These events may be particularly useful for
introducing new topics, raising awareness, and motivating young people.

- Go Say events are those where people can debate scientific issues, so they are particularly useful for engaging scientists and the
public in dialogue.

- Go Use events are those where science is presented in a utilitarian way, for people to make use of, and so are particularly useful
for engagement through participation.

Sections 2.2 to 2.4 give some examples of science promotion events to give you a flavour of what an organised science promotion
event in the UK can be like.

As you read through the examples, think about the opportunities that might arise within them for open dialogue or whether
there may be more likelihood of a ‘top-down’ transmission of facts. Are these idioms useful in understanding how PEST is conveyed
in institutional science promotion events? (Another caveat though: it has only been possible to apply these idioms to the
idea of ‘institutional’ science promotion and not to ‘independent’ science promotion because of the diverse, informal nature
of the latter.)

2.2 ‘Go See’ science promotion events

Every year, the BA (British Association for the Advancement of Science) runs a week-long Festival of Science in a different
town or city, claiming it to be the largest public celebration of science in the country. The events are diverse in topic
and character. The 2004 Festival in Exeter, for example, included a Presidential lecture on the responsibility of scientists,
an exhibition on climate change, and an excursion to a nearby car park to test geometry by chalking lines on the ground. Festivals
attract wide audiences, but tickets are costly (around £20 per day for the 2005 Festival, although ostensibly ‘free’ coverage
is available on the BA web pages).

Since 1994, the BA have also run National Science Week. This event takes place every March and offers hundreds of public talks,
workshops and exhibitions around the country. Sometimes the Weeks are thematic – the 2005 National Science Week was a celebration
of Einstein Year – and events may be locally specific (for example related to a local inventor or organisation). The BA says
that it runs these events to celebrate the importance of science in everyday life and to make science and its applications
accessible to all.

NESTA (the National Endowment for Science, Technology and Arts) and the Nuffield Foundation run a long-term sponsorship programme
of six ‘Cities of Science’ in the UK, focusing on how these cities and their regions benefit science and, equally, are benefited
by science. At the time of writing (2006), the sponsored cities were London, Manchester, Liverpool, Bristol and the South
West, Newcastle and the North East, and Birmingham and the West Midlands. The scheme invites the public to learn about historical
and contemporary science research in their area and to join local science promotion events – for example going on a tour of
an original jewellery factory in Birmingham, listening to an explanation of the telescope inside the London Monument, and
going on fieldtrips to quarries and fossil beds in the North West.

‘Science on the Buses’ was a UK-wide bus poster campaign that was run in nine UK cities in the late 1990s. Designed by Frank
Burnet and the Graphic Science Unit at the University of the West of England, the message of the posters was that science
is part of everyday life, with scientists sharing the interests and concerns of their fellow citizens. Young adults, identified
by the team as being frequent bus users and poorly served by other PEST (Public Engagement in Science and Technology) methods,
were the target audience. As a way of evolving PEST communication methods to suit the target audience, the posters were deliberately
light-hearted and intriguing rather than didactic, with graphics that resembled nightclub flyers. The event was sponsored
by the Millennium Commission, the OST (Office of Science and Technology), the Institute of Physics and the Royal Society of
Chemistry.

The ‘Pub Understanding of Science’ project, started in 1997, used beer mats to further the ‘public understanding of science,
life and the Universe’. Scientific questions and answers, written by biologist David Walker and illustrator Mic Rolph, were
printed on beer mats and placed in pubs across the country. The idea was that these unusual and eye-catching beer mats would
inspire drinkers to start talking about science, whether or not they answered the questions correctly. The project was sponsored
by the Millennium Commission, Royal Society and BA.

Gunter von Hagen’s public autopsies and exhibitions have not only created great controversy – and publicity – for the inventor
and his Institute for Plastination, but have also achieved phenomenal success in terms of visitor numbers. The exhibitions,
called ‘Bodyworlds’ and ‘Bodyworlds 2’, have run almost continually since 1996 and have attracted around 16 million people
worldwide – allegedly the largest number of visitors ever recorded for a touring exhibition, according to the ‘Bodyworlds’
website.

2.3 ‘Go Say’ science promotion events

An increasing number of science museums and science centres hold regular organised events that stand apart from their exhibitions.
The Dana Centre, which now has a permanent venue in the Wellcome Wolfson Building at the Science Museum, holds 10–20 events
each month. They are designed to provoke discussion through a blend of debate, art, multimedia and performance, covering issues
such as the ethics of prolonging the life of foetuses, the role of science in alleviating poverty, and what is, and is not,
medicine. The Centre is sponsored by the European Dana Alliance for the Brain, the BA (British Association for the Advancement
of Science) and the Science Museum. Similar events include the ‘Citizen Science’ debates at the ‘At-Bristol’ Science Centre
and the ‘Talking Point’ series at the Royal Institution.

Science Cafés, whereby people join informal scientific debates held in non-academic places such as cafés, bookshops or community
spaces, have opened around the UK since their inception in Leeds in 1998. Science Cafés are coordinated by an umbrella group
called Café Scientifique and sponsored by the Wellcome Trust (often alongside smaller, local organisations). They aim to let
people air their views and ask questions, usually in response to a scientist or science writer invited to give a short talk
about their work. Informality and enquiry are strongly encouraged: the Café Scientifique website claims: ‘There will be opportunity
for everyone to ask questions, and we welcome those which begin “This might be a stupid question, but...”. These questions
are invariably not stupid and often rather insightful.’

2.4 ‘Go Use’ science promotion events

Science shops, created in the Netherlands in the 1960s and now spread throughout Europe, first emerged in the UK in 1988 (at
Queen's University, Belfast). They act as a demand-driven link between a university or independent research facility and the
community (usually via citizen groups, such as pressure groups, social groups, consumers and residents associations), putting
one in touch with the other upon request. They carry out scientific research on practical, scientific problems at the local
community level in a wide range of disciplines. Projects are carried out on behalf of local communities and are usually free
of charge. This form of promotion, from society to researchers, is known as the concept of ‘social demand’, and the demand
is certainly there: the Queen's University Science Shop receives more than 200 research requests each year. Its research has
included projects on the use and abuse of the drug Ritalin, socio-economic factors relating to participation in kerbside recycling,
and a user evaluation of the Ulster Cancer Foundation's ‘Freefone Cancer Helpline’. Numerous other UK Universities, including
Liverpool, Manchester and Glamorgan, now operate Science Shops (or similar schemes) and the EU actively encourages these shops
in all member states.

2.5 Public engagement

From the examples outlined in sections 2.2 to 2.4, which are just a fraction of what is available, you could conclude that
the UK public are, in general, offered a wide range of science promotion events. These events provide valuable insights into
many aspects of science for laypeople, perhaps especially the ‘high tech’ science that they might otherwise never experience.
They also provide a useful opportunity for scientists to engage with the public – should that be wanted. And where these events
have received government funding, it also means that the government can claim to have fulfilled its mandate to encourage greater
public access to, and engagement with, science.

But, numerically, there seem to be far more opportunities to ‘Go See’ science than to ‘Go Say’ or ‘Go Use’ it, and this is
worthy of comment (not least because literature evaluating science promotion events is scant and the actual distribution of
these events is not clear). Our analysis might take these ‘Go See’ events to be where – generally speaking – a linear transmission
of science is endorsed, in other words where a hypothesis or body of knowledge is presented to the audience for their education.
Of course, such ‘Go See’ events can be creative – they are not necessarily boring, didactic or dogmatic – and from this an
enthusiasm and motivation to participate can be generated. But terming ‘Go See’ events as linear is to distinguish them from
a purposefully dialogic style of communication where participants might expect contributor status, i.e. to listen and be listened
to. It may be that this linear transmission is intentional – that these events implicitly take public engagement to mean public
education. Or it may be that this is an issue of practicality, in that ‘Go See’ events are often aimed at larger audiences,
whereas ‘Go Say’ or ‘Go Use’ events work better on a smaller, more intimate scale. Perhaps, therefore, there is a ‘pay-off’
to be considered here between the reach and the intimacy/dialogue possibilities of the event.

Whatever the precise value of events of the types discussed so far – and you will appreciate that relatively little detailed
evaluation has been conducted about public impact – they form an increasingly noticeable element of science promotion. The
next section discusses the likely value of such events – essentially why people choose to seek them out and apply themselves,
and why many other (non-governmental) organisations feel they are worth funding.

3 The value of institutional science promotion events

There are three reasons why these science promotion events are considered to be valuable.

1. Many people think that these events can be informational, educational and enjoyable. You can meet others of a similar outlook,
learn something new, spend quality time with your family, or confront a nagging fear from your schooldays that you ‘don't
understand science’. In turn, this could motivate you to find out more, either as a citizen and/or as a potential future scientist.
Hence, these events can have at least one purpose – that which the Greeks referred to as eudaimonia or human flourishing. The chance to learn is part of this, as is the chance for people to share their knowledge about something
that interests them. Probably we all like to do this, and many scientists will feel the same. Indeed, a survey commissioned
by the Wellcome Trust in 1999–2000 found that scientists were very positive about communicating their research to the public.
This is reminiscent of Michael Mulkay's claim that science embodies an ideology of sharing knowledge. In other words, it seems
valid to argue that the pursuit of eudaimonia, for scientists and the public, is one reason why science promotion events are organised.

2. Commentators such as Robin Millar (1997) and John Durant et al. (2000) argue that promoting a greater understanding of science
is an important public service. They believe that a better science awareness is crucial to sustaining economic prosperity
in our modern knowledge-based society, since prosperity is dependent on a skilled workforce that is ‘scientifically literate’.
Millar's argument in Science Today: Problem or Crisis? is that a reasonable grounding in science is crucial for democratic involvement – what we might call the ‘wise vote’. Science
outreach is thereby a means to help society become scientifically literate enough to make a broader contribution to the country's
economic and civic prosperity. (You will probably be aware, though, that defining and measuring scientific literacy is difficult
– see the differences between, for example, the quantitative Eurobarometer surveys and the qualitative approach of Irwin (1995)
or Layton et al. (1993). The paper by Jon Miller (1983) is also useful here.)

3. It can be argued that these events have political currency, letting those who join in feel a sense of involvement in a key
knowledge system (and maybe a value system too) underpinning our ‘technocracy’. Thus, science promotion events can be vehicles
for enhancing inclusivity and a sense of social cohesion. This reflects Irwin's ideas about ‘citizen science’ – he argues
that:

traditional treatments of citizenship have concerned themselves very little with questions of knowledge and expertise. While
such questions overlap with matters of empowerment and democracy, they also bring a new element into focus: the linkage between
ways of knowing and of acting.

(Irwin, 1995, p. 178)

To summarise, science promotion can be to enhance individual fulfilment, social cohesion and democracy, and industrial and
economic potential. If the overall aim is to raise public awareness of, accessibility to, and comfort with, science and technology
issues, then this is a political mandate although one without an associated political party. It might be said, then, that
science promotion is political, albeit in a broad sense and with a small ‘p’.

Some of these institutional events might also be characterised according to a second small ‘p’ – by seeing them as ‘paradigmatic’, or by conforming to current conventions and understandings such as accepted laws and theories, professional codes of conduct
and experimental procedures. Thus it is interesting to speculate whether the programmes run by national governments, established
institutions and large organisations might be more influential because of the inherent power attributed to them and because
they reinforce familiar messages. We then have a third ‘p’ characteristic to consider – that of the privilege afforded to information from certain sources. Some information will be conveyed by these events at the expense of other information;
if it is conveyed by an institutional source, then it may enjoy the privilege of association – or indeed the reverse.

We will return to some of these theoretical ideas towards the end of this free course. But to continue the analysis, the next
section will consider ‘independent’ public engagement with science. Remember that these distinctions are not exhaustive or
especially rigorous, but are created to try and help you understand the phenomenon of science promotion.

4 D-I-Y science: independently engaging with science

It could be argued that relying on institutional science promotion events might overlook a subtle, but equally important means
of people engaging with science: when science is accessed on an informal, independent or non-institutional basis (previously
referred to as a do-it-yourself style of science promotion). Rather than seeing this as an anarchistic rejection of formal
initiatives (although this might occasionally be the case), it could indicate an extra measure of commitment on behalf of
the individual. Not just turning up at an exhibition, for example, but keeping an identifiable momentum to improve one’s own
knowledge and involvement, takes dedication.

This kind of independent but deep-rooted engagement with science is well established, and certainly pre-dates the PUS (Public
Understanding of Science) movement. There is an honorable tradition in the UK of highly involved amateurs, from the naturalists
and museum curators of Victorian times to the first computing enthusiasts who built machines at home in the 1970s. Yet it
is only now that their contribution is being articulated in the wider political realm. According to Leadbeater and Miller
(2004) (see Reading 1 below), there are at least 4500 independent archaeologists in the UK (not counting people who occasionally
use metal detectors), 100 000 amateurs actively involved in nature conservation, over one million members of wildlife groups
and more than two million active gardeners – a numerable group of ‘informal scientists’, for sure.

Activity 1

Read Reading 1, an extract from ‘The Pro-Am Revolution: how enthusiasts are changing our economy and society’ by Charles Leadbeater and
Paul Miller (2004). The report, commissioned for the economic think-tank DEMOS, explores the phenomenon of ‘Pro-Ams’ – committed
amateurs who attain a professional level of expertise through their passion and perseverance.

By highlighting the personal and civic value of the efforts of people such as birdwatchers, amateur astronomers and computer
programmers, Leadbeater and Miller argue that encouraging Pro-Ams in society will lead to more innovation and a healthier
democracy. Do the authors suggest the contribution by Pro-Ams to scientific progress can be across the board, or might it
be limited in some types of science (high-tech science, for example)?

Taking this a step further, do Leadbeater and Miller imply that ‘expert knowledge’ – presumably the knowledge that emanates
from a professional person or institution – makes a definable and distinct contribution to social phenomena like innovation
and democracy? And how might people best engage with this ‘expert knowledge’ – is it via organised science promotion events?
‘Independent’ does not necessarily mean solo – although some Pro-Ams do work entirely alone, Leadbeater and Miller claim that
most do not. Like scientists working in institutions, many Pro Ams want to spread their message and share their knowledge,
but they do this through autonomous clubs, magazines, networks and digital technologies rather than through organised public
events. The deduction is that Pro-Ams do not necessarily need institutional science outreach events in order to engage with
science.

The realisation that members of the public can educate and empower themselves in a realm that, historically, has been populated
by an intellectual ‘elite’ gives substance to several ideas. First, it reminds us that science–public relations can evolve
to become more dialogic and mutually supportive, as suggested by David Layton’s ‘Interactive Model’ and Alan Irwin’s ‘Democracy
Model’ of communication. Secondly, it reflects claims that lay people can be highly adept at seeking out and using scientific
information when they want to or need to – claims made in the course material by, for example, Irwin and Wynne (1996) and
Edgar Jenkins (1997). Thirdly, it opens up the question about what constitutes an ‘expert’ and the role they should play in
public policy decisions.

But is the knowledge, experience and social cohesion of Pro-Ams a valid contribution towards science promotion in the UK, or should there be some level of established professional review, so that
the public are given only facts and theories that are widely accepted? This is not just a theoretical riddle. If the argument,
made in Reading 1, that Pro-Ams are a key part of the country's scientific knowledge base is accepted, perhaps they should
be invited to contribute openly to a national science promotion drive. Yet whilst the Pro-Am story may be inspiring, it is
not clear how viable this contribution would be.

Clearly, Leadbeater and Miller support the idea of ‘Pro-Ams’, and see their value as autonomous individuals/collectives and
as partners in networked teams made up of professionals and amateurs. Indeed, it will often be the case that there is no neat
separation between the two when it comes to review and promulgation of findings and recommendations. This raises the issue
of complementarity, and how it might be best achieved. It may be that the fundamental assumptions and established agendas
within the PEST (Public Engagement in Science and Technology) movement need to evolve. This is the subject of the next section.

5 Public learning agendas

So far, this course has argued that public engagement with science can be through both institutionalised events and independent
contributions – hopefully, something for everyone. But to what extent will this be a consistent move towards dialogue and
understanding, as requested by the UK and EU policies mentioned in Section 2?

Reading 2 suggests a move towards genuine interaction is possible if there is enough political motivation to enhance community
learning of science and technology – referred to as ‘public learning agendas’. Reading 1 (the Pro-Am paper) essentially looked
at the local level. Reading 2 moves up to the ‘national’ level, arguing that if the political impetus is there, then it is
possible for public learning agendas to be redefined to encompass lay knowledge and interests. Interestingly, although the
paper is by two Australian authors and makes some reference to that context, it is still markedly international, citing sources
and scenarios from the UK and elsewhere with which you may be familiar. This suggests that there are themes and lessons to
be drawn from cross-cultural comparisons and conversations: science promotion is not necessarily a single nation's endeavour.

Activity 2

Read Reading 2, ‘The communication of science and technology: past, present and future agendas’ by Leonie Rennie and Susan Stocklmayer (2003).
This paper has two uses for you. The first half of the paper is a valuable overview of how science is promoted in formal institutions
such as science centres and museums – an aspect that is related to this course but purposely not covered by it. The second
half of the paper – page 765 onwards – offers a conceptual discussion on some of the issues that we have covered about the
role of science promotion within the political mandate for PEST (Public Engagement in Science and Technology). The authors
argue that both scientists and the public should contribute fully to the science–policy domain, but they raise the question
of how this might be achieved.

The authors argue that:

idea of ‘engagement’ still seems to place responsibility on the public to make the overtures to learn more about science and
technology.

Our view is that the notion of ‘science and technology’s engagement with the public’ may better represent the way forward.

(Rennie and Stocklmayer, 2003, p. 768)

Yet two pages later, they note that:

If there is important knowledge to be shared, such as the need for immunisation of children, how do we set about making it
known in the wider community?

(Rennie and Stocklmayer, 2003, p. 770)

Once again, the tension emerges between intention and achievement, or whether practice reflects purpose. Should a distinction
be made between science that has to be transmitted to the public, and science that can be left open to discovery, if the motivation
exists? Who would decide which was which?

Rennie and Stocklmayer (2003) thus reflect an idea expressed at the start of this course – that there is fluidity between
formal and informal objectives in science promotion. It raises the issue of which science is actively promoted by these events
and which science is left out. At least two scenarios might arise from this, both of which were mentioned in Section 2 of
this course. One scenario is that political imperatives determine priorities in science promotion events, with dialogue about
controversial science marginalised in favour of exhibitions about acceptable ‘science in general’. The other scenario, highlighted
by the House of Lords quotation in Section 2, is that the public only get to debate controversial issues. Rennie and Stocklmayer try to address this lack of clarity by
asking (but unfortunately not answering) a similar question on page 768, ‘Should we concentrate on science as process, science
as history, science as uncertainty?’ What is your opinion?

Furthermore, on page 767, Rennie and Stocklmayer report that ‘it is a common view among scientists, particularly older ones,
that responsibility rests with the public to learn more science.’ This echoes the deficit approach to science–society relations,
and of the early ‘public understanding of science’ (PUS) programmes with their remit to educate the public (compared to recent
requirements for some kind of public engagement activity as a condition of grant awards).

But here emerges another question – one that perhaps has no fixed answer. Do these scientists have a point that it is the
public's responsibility to increase their knowledge if they want to engage in current science–policy debates? Arguably, the
answer to this question depends on context. It would be hard to have a progressive and fruitful debate if participants are
unwilling to learn about the other perspectives being presented (the scientific realm has been critised for not engaging with
social or ethical issues; it is equally valid to be concerned if public participants refuse to engage with technical issues).
Yet, seeing science only as a way of allowing people to address specific questions could lead to an overly utilitarian approach
to science promotion; there is not much scope for encouraging eudaimonia or enlightened dialogic citizenship if this were the case. The next section tries to look at the future of science promotion
and to evaluate how it might herald a genuine move towards interactive dialogue and understanding on local, national and international
levels.

6 Promoting science promotion: the move from deficit to dialogue

This course has tried to distinguish between institutional science outreach events and independent alternatives by recognising
some of their characteristics and evaluating the extent to which they fulfil (and even create) a political mandate for PEST
(Public Engagement in Science and Technology). Although institutional events sometimes involve the deficit style of ‘top-down’
transmission of facts, the examples provided in this course suggest that they are increasingly imaginative and unusual. Arguably,
there is often a linear message being presented to the audience for their education, but there is also a tangible effort towards
greater public engagement.

It seems worthwhile to reflect on the idea that these events offer an opportunity to institutionalise (and thus probably reproduce)
better styles of science–public dialogue. In the UK, this ‘institutionalisation’ is via the government, which has political
obligations to fulfil a PEST agenda, and via organisations such as the BA (British Association for the Advancement of Science)
and the Wellcome Institute. Science–public debates in other countries will also influence the UK agenda by way of providing
a more dynamic context. Rennie and Stocklmayer showed that this debate is vibrant in Australia, and you may be aware of initiatives
in the USA and elsewhere in Europe. The EU ‘Science and Society Action Plan’ has already been introduced in this course and,
at the level of the United Nations, UNESCO has Project 2000+, which aims to improve scientific and technological literacy around the world. It thus seems increasingly important to recognise
how international factors may influence the move from deficit to dialogue in science promotion.

While thinking about how international agendas might be influential at the local and national level, a question was posed
earlier about whether the opportunities that arise from also having to fulfil international commitments might encourage a
wide-ranging approach to science outreach, or if in different countries obligations might be fulfilled reluctantly, perhaps
reverting to ‘tried and tested’ deficit style events. This seems particularly apt to think about because of the commitments
to the EU Science and Society Action Plan that the UK needs to fulfil.

The EU claims to work on behalf of its citizens as regards science and society, but by 2007 this covered half a billion people
in 27 member states. It begs the questions of how achievable its shared aims are, and what major challenges lie ahead. Indeed,
there are notable differences amongst EU countries in how science is perceived in society, although not necessarily in any
uniform pattern. Whilst there is a common international language on the need to improve public engagement with science (largely
for the reasons outlined in Section 4 of this course), there is also disparity amongst the EU countries.

While the reliance on survey methods to test scientific literacy is problematic, it might be worth reflecting briefly on the
findings of Durant et al. (2000). They found a positive correlation between a country's level of industrialisation and the
scientific literacy of its citizens, and between the length of time that a country has been industrialised and the optimism
of its citizens about the extent to which science could solve broader societal problems. If such correlations do exist though,
it may be difficult to maintain a pan-European ethos of public engagement amongst 27 different countries when some are more
industrialised than others. Likewise, although there are still generally high levels of confidence and appreciation of science
around Europe, in some EU countries (e.g. Britain) it is also an increasingly sceptical view. That said, the EU Action Plan
might be fruitfully seen as a means to address this scepticism by institutionalising a move towards dialogue and greater public
access to science on such a large scale. Reading 3 is an opportunity to reflect on some aspects of the EU Action Plan.

Activity 3

Reading 3 is two excerpts from Section 1 of the EU’s Science and Society Action Plan (2002) called ‘Promoting scientific education
and culture in Europe’. Section 1.1 is called ‘Public Awareness’ and Section 1.3 is ‘Dialogue with Citizens’ (Section 1.2
‘Science education and careers’ is not especially relevant to this course but, of course, you can follow it up yourself if
you wish).

As you read the two excerpts, reflect on whether they illustrate all that science promotion could be.

- Can you recognise an overall style of science promotion, perhaps one that fits the ‘deficit’ or ‘democracy’/‘engagement’ model
(or both)?

- Is there any acknowledgement of the cross-cultural tensions that might emerge from trying to encompass so many different countries
and cultures, or does the Plan presume that science outreach is unaffected by local context?

Reading 3 seems to embody a common and contradictory rhetoric about science's place in society and how it might be best promoted.
It recognises scientific expertise as a crucial part of modern democracy, yet assumes this will be supported by greater scientific
literacy amongst the public. In theory it advocates the interactive model of science–public relations, but in practice it employs the deficit model. For example, Section 1.1 maintains that scientists have special knowledge and distinguishes
science communication as a way to ‘present issues of interest to the public’, without once acknowledging the potential contribution
of lay knowledge (arising from Pro-Ams, for example). Likewise, the Plan sees science promotion as essentially ‘top-down’,
citing exhibitions and documentaries as especially useful mechanisms, and proposes a European Science Week to replicate successful
events from around the EU (see Actions 6 and 7).

This is somewhat contradicted by Section 1.3, which is more progressive in its support for dialogue. For example, the EU is
very supportive of Science Shops, mentioned earlier as characteristic of ‘Go Use’ events. Its support has allowed an international
network to evolve, with Science Shops now in Austria, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, Spain and the UK. This international
network trait allows the Science Shops to flourish autonomously whilst still benefiting from the resources and associations
generated by the EU – presumably a way of encouraging complementarity between the public, research organisations and political
institutions.

However, the tension between ‘linear’ (deficit) and ‘contextual’ (dialogic) science promotion styles is still evident. The
Plan surmises, for example, that ‘The scientific and technological community will play an essential role by presenting issues
of interest to the public at large, and by contributing to the debate’ (p. 14). But if this is to be followed, it does require
scrutiny over issues such as how the EU intends to evaluate the ‘success’ of its science weeks, and how it will recognise
those scientists that have ‘communication skills’, so they can be entered on its database (Action 2), and whether it is wise
to rely on the media as a sympathetic vehicle for disseminating information (Action 1).

The simplifications in this part of the Action Plan are perhaps a little surprising. They seem to overlook the hard lessons
learnt in the UK and elsewhere over the past fifteen years about making science–public relations genuine and interactive.
It may also be worth considering the impact of the Action Plan's message in those countries outside the EU. The Rennie and
Stocklmayer paper, for example, indicates some current thinking in Australia and yet many of their references are to the UK
debate. Do you think there is a global agenda for PEST, perhaps in the light of issues such as HIV/AIDS and GM crops, or is
the public mood for engagement in Australia one of the few examples of an agenda outside Europe and North America?

However, to be optimistic, the Action Plan also asks that ‘A true dialogue must therefore be instituted between science and
society’ (Section 1.3, p. 14), through schemes like forums, hearings and Science Shops, operating at all levels within the
Union. Their use of the word ‘instituted’ is interesting: perhaps the new generation of organised or institutional science
promotion events will have ‘true dialogue’ as a key feature. Given all the diverse starting points within the EU, perhaps
this is a step in the right direction, out of which more can grow.

7 Conclusions

Throughout this course, numerous examples of science promotion have been given, from the individual level of Pro-Ams to the
supranational level of the EU Action Plan. Is there an appropriate political level for initiating science promotion or might
a multi-level approach be more fruitful?

Certainly there is evidence that local or sub-national initiatives can engage people – from Science Cafés and Cities of Science,
to the Pub Understanding of Science beer mats with scientific questions and the informal networks of Pro-Ams. People may be
inspired to access science by it having a local presence, by it representing a strong regional tradition or by the desire
to join a local knowledge community. Thus, we might find that people are joining in some element of science outreach as a
means of generating (or maintaining) social cohesion. The Leadbeater and Miller paper (Reading 1) argued this well:

The fact that people can pursue amateur hobbies and interests without state censorship or interference is a good measure of
freedom. People with passions that draw them into civic life are more likely to have a stake in a democratic process that
defends this freedom of association.

(Leadbeater and Miller, 2004, p. 54)

There are also reasons to encourage science promotion on a national and international level. Nationwide schemes may have
more resources to initiate diverse events and techniques, and any subsequent success may reach a wider audience and thus become
self-reinforcing. The paradigm of linear transmission in science promotion is still common in the UK, but this paradigm is
being modified as the social and political momentum towards dialogue and interaction gathers pace. Indeed, as Rennie and Stocklmayer
(p. 766) observe: ‘With extraordinary speed, the tone of debate in Europehas changed to one of dialogue, openness and accountability’.
However, you'll appreciate that while the rhetoric from ‘on high’ may have changed, the problems of how engagement might work
in practice and getting scientists and policy makers fully committed to the idea remain.

It is perhaps not surprising, therefore, that Rennie and Stocklmayer go on to warn that ‘decisions about science and technology
education and informal learning, for the many people whom these areas aim to reach, are no closer to resolution than before’
(Rennie and Stocklmayer, p. 766). To achieve resolution will involve many players on different political levels – not just
the relevant office of the appropriate government department, but also the research community, industry, NGOs, opposition
parties, the education sector and citizen groups – as well as individuals not part of a recognised grouping. Within this,
we should recognise the contribution of the ‘subculture’ of independent collectives and individuals, such as the Pro-Ams,
but we need to be sensitive about the extent to which that contribution is formalised since trying to do this may spoil its
very essence.

Furthermore, initiatives at all geo-political levels could emphasise the cross-cultural cohesion that might be gained from
enlightened science promotion. Clearly there is momentum for greater public involvement in the science–policy realm, but it
is not always clear what the motive is for those who initiate science promotion programmes. Thus science promotion also needs
to be genuinely dialogic and interactive, with an explicit agenda of public access and inclusion – as such, it actually needs
to be more political. Perhaps this makes the case for all the types of promotion considered in this course – institutional and individual,
‘Go See’, ‘Go Say’ and ‘Go Use’ – to be considered as viable means of science outreach and public engagement.

This course has taken you on an analytical journey, from local science promotion events to international PEST (Public Engagement
in Science and Technology) strategies, with many concepts and readings along the way. As a bit of light relief (but with a
serious message, of course), you might enjoy the activity.

Activity 4

Do you recall the ‘event’ of ‘Pub Understanding of Science’ beer mats? See for yourself if they work – cut out the mat (attached
as a pdf below) and see if it inspires your friends and family to engage with science.

‘Pub Understanding of Science’ beer mat for use with the activity.

Keep on learning

Study another free course

There are more than 800 courses on OpenLearn for you to choose from on a range of subjects.

Find out more about all our free courses.

Take your studies further

Find out more about studying with The Open University by visiting our online prospectus.

If you are new to university study, you may be interested in our Access Courses or Certificates.

What’s new from OpenLearn?

Sign up to our newsletter or view a sample.

For reference, full URLs to pages listed above:

OpenLearn – www.open.edu/openlearn/free-courses

Visiting our online prospectus – www.open.ac.uk/courses

Access Courses – www.open.ac.uk/courses/do-it/access

Certificates – www.open.ac.uk/courses/certificates-he

Newsletter – www.open.edu/openlearn/about-openlearn/subscribe-the-openlearn-newsletter

References

Durant, J., Bauer, M., Gaskell, G., Midden, C., Liakopoulos, M. and Scholten, L. (2000) ‘Two cultures of public understanding
of science andtechnology in Europe’ in Dierkes, M. and Von Grote, C. (eds) Between Understanding and Trust: the Public, Science and Technology, Amsterdam: Harwood Academic Publishers.

Eurobarometer (2001) (accessed November 2008).

European Commission (2002) Science and Society Action Plan, Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.

Gregory, J. and Miller, S. (1998) Science in Public: Communication, Culture, and Credibility, New York: Plenum.

Irwin, A. (1995) Citizen Science: a study of people, expertise and sustainable development, London: Routledge.

Irwin, A. and Wynne, B. (1996) ‘Introduction’ in Misunderstanding Science, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Jenkins, E. (1997) ‘Towards a functional public understanding of Science’ inScience Today: Problem or Crisis?, London: Routledge.

Layton, D., Jenkins, E., Macgill, S. and Davey, A.(1993) Chapter 2: ‘Public Understanding of Science Today’, Inarticulate Science? Perspectives on the public understanding of science and some implications for science education, Driffield, East Yorkshire: Studies in Education Ltd.

Leadbeater, C. and Miller, P. (2004) The Pro-Am Revolution: how enthusiasts are changing our economy and society, London: DEMOS.

Millar, R. (1997) ‘Science Education for Democracy: What can the school curriculum achieve?’ in Science Today: Problem or Crisis?, London: Routledge.

Miller, J. D. (1983) ‘Scientific Literacy: A Conceptual and Empirical Review’, Daedalus, 112(2), pp. 29–48.

Mulkay, M. (1994) ‘The Triumph of the Pre-Embryo: Interpretations of theHuman Embryo in Parliamentary Debate over Embryo Research’,
Social Studies of Science, 24, pp. 611–39.

Office of Science and Technology (2000) ‘Excellence and Opportunity: A science and innovation policy for the 21st century’,
(Cm 4814), London: HMSO.

Pub Understanding of Science Project (accessed November 2008).

Rennie, L. and Stocklmayer, S. (2003) ‘The communication of science andtechnology: past, present and future agendas’, International Journal of Science Education, 25(6), pp. 759–73.

Wellcome Trust (2001) Role of scientists in public debate, London: Wellcome Trust.

Acknowledgements

The content acknowledged below is Proprietary (see terms and conditions) and is used under licence. This content is made available under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 Licence

Grateful acknowledgement is made to the following sources for permission to reproduce material in this course:

Couse image: Stephen Curry in Flickr made available under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.0 Licence.

The content acknowledged below is Proprietary and is used under licence.

Reading 1: Leadbeater, C. and Miller, P. (2004) ‘The Pro-Am Revolution: How enthusiasts are changing our economy and society’, London:
DEMOS, Section 1. Note this paper is made available under Creative Commons licence: Non-Commercial, No Derivs 2.0 England and Wales.

Reading 2: Rennie, L.J. and Stocklmayer, S.M. (2003) published in ‘The communication of science and technology: past, present and future
agendas’, International Journal of Science Education, 25(6), 759–73. copyright © Rennie and Stocklmayer;

Reading 3: European Commission (2002) Science and Society Action Plan, Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European
Communities, Sections 1.1 and 1.3.

‘The Pub Understanding of Science’ beer mat is reproduced courtesy of Oxygraphics.

Phil Whitehouse: [Details correct as of 3rd November 2008]

Don't miss out:

If reading this text has inspired you to learn more, you may be interested in joining the millions of people who discover
our free learning resources and qualifications by visiting The Open University - www.open.edu/openlearn/free-courses