Deficits and dialogues: science communication and the public understanding of science in the UK

doi:10.1017/CBO9780511760228.004

1 - Deficits and dialogues: science communication and the public understanding of science in the UK

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 May 2013

Simon J. Lock

Edited by

David J. Bennett and

Richard C. Jennings

Foreword by

Walter Bodmer

Show author details

David J. Bennett: Affiliation:
St Edmund's College, Cambridge
Richard C. Jennings: Affiliation:
University of Cambridge

Book contents

Get access

Summary

Introduction

In 1985 the Royal Society published a report on the public understanding of science (PUS), eponymously known as the Bodmer Report after Dr (now Sir) Walter Bodmer who chaired the working group which produced it and contributes the Foreword to this book (Royal Society 1985). This report problematised the public's knowledge of science and gave rise to a variety of science communication activities aimed at correcting a perceived lack of scientific knowledge by the public. Fifteen years later another key report by the House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology argued that society's relationship with science was in a critical phase (House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology 2000). Almost overnight, science communication activities practised by scientific and government agencies as ‘public understanding of science’, were replaced by encouragement for new methods of public engagement and dialogue under the new label of ‘Science and Society’.

Many regarded this as a watershed moment in the public understanding of science movement. The idea that the public were deficient in scientific knowledge and should therefore be exposed to science communication by scientific experts was replaced by a dialogue model of communication which framed the public in a very different manner – a public who should be listened to, who had something meaningful to input into scientific policy-making and whose trust in scientists needed rebuilding – a view which continues to the present day.

Type: Chapter
Information: Successful Science Communication
Telling It Like It Is
, pp. 17 - 30

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511760228.004 [Opens in a new window]

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication year: 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Gregory, J.Miller, S. 1998 Science in Public: Communication, Culture and CredibilityNew YorkPlenumGoogle Scholar

Holliman, R.Whitelegg, E. 2008 Investigating Science Communication in the Information Age: Implications for Public Engagement and Popular MediaOxfordOxford University PressGoogle Scholar

Irwin, A. 2006 ‘The Politics of Talk: Coming to Terms with the “New” Scientific Governance’Social Studies of Science 36 299CrossRef Google Scholar

Irwin, A.Wynne, B. 1996 Misunderstanding Science? The Public Reconstruction of Science and TechnologyCambridgeCambridge University PressCrossRef Google Scholar

Wilsdon, J.Willis, R. 2004 See-Through Science: Why Public Engagement Needs to Move UpstreamLondonDemosGoogle Scholar

Wynne, B. 2006 ‘Public Engagement as a Means of Restoring Public Trust in Science – Hitting the Notes, but Missing the Music?’Community Genetics 9 211Google Scholar

AEBC 2001 Crops on Trial: A Report by the AEBCLondonAgriculture and Environment Biotechnology CommissionGoogle Scholar

British Social Attitudes Survey 1996 www.esds.ac.uk/findingData/snDescription.asp?sn=3921

Collins, H.Pinch, T. 1993 The Golem: What Everyone Should Know about ScienceCambridgeCambridge University PressGoogle Scholar

COPUS 2001 www.copus.org.uk/copus_councilpaper.htm

COPUS 2002 Statement on Copus by the British Association, the Royal Institution and the Royal SocietyLondonThe Royal SocietyGoogle Scholar

Department of Trade and Industry 2003 GM Nation? The Findings of the Public DebateLondonDTIGoogle Scholar

Durant, J. 1995 ‘A new agenda for the public understanding of science’: An inaugural lecture given by John Durant, Professor of Public Understanding of ScienceImperial CollegeLondonGoogle Scholar

Durant, J.Evans, G.Thomas, G. 1989 The public understanding of scienceNature 340 11CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Durant, J.Bauer, M.Gaskell, G. 1998 Biotechnology in the Public Sphere: A European Source BookLondonScience Museum PublicationsGoogle Scholar

Evans, G.Durant, J. 1995 The relationship between knowledge and attitudes in the public understanding of science in BritainPublic Understanding of Science 4 57CrossRef Google Scholar

Goodell, R. 1977 The Visible ScientistsBoston, MALittle, BrownGoogle Scholar

Gregory, J.Miller, S. 1998 Science in Public: Communication, Culture and CredibilityNew YorkPlenum PressGoogle Scholar

HM Treasury 2004 Science and Innovation Investment Framework 2004–2014LondonHMSOGoogle Scholar

House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology 2000 Science and SocietyLondonHMSOGoogle Scholar

Irwin, A.Wynne, B. 1996 Misunderstanding Science? The Public Reconstruction of Science and TechnologyCambridgeCambridge University PressCrossRef Google Scholar

Jasanoff, S. 1997 Civilization and madness: the great BSE scare of 1996Public Understanding of Science 6 221CrossRef Google Scholar

Lewenstein, B. V. 1992 The meaning of ‘public understanding of science’ in the United States after World War IIPublic Understanding of Science 1 45CrossRef Google Scholar

Lock, S. 2009 Lost in translations: discourses, boundaries and legitimacy in the public understanding of science in the UKUniversity of LondonGoogle Scholar

Mayer, S. 2003 www.genewatch.org/sub-531175

Michael, M. 1992 Lay discourses of science: science-in-general, science-in-particular, and selfScience, Technology and Human Values 17 313CrossRef Google Scholar

Nature 2004 Editorial: ‘Going public’Nature 431 883Google Scholar

NERC 2001 www.nerc.ac.uk/insight/openness/scisocpolicy.asp

Office of Science and Technology 1993 Realising Our Potential: A Strategy for Science, Engineering and TechnologyLondonHMSOGoogle Scholar

Office of Science and Technology 1995 Report of the Committee to Review the Contribution of Scientists and Engineers to the Public Understanding of Science, Engineering and TechnologyLondonOSTGoogle Scholar

Public Debate Steering Board 2003 GM Nation? The Findings from the Public Debate Report by the Public Debate Steering BoardLondonDepartment of Trade and IndustryGoogle Scholar

Rowe, G. 2005 Difficulties in evaluating public engagement initiatives: reflections on an evaluation of the UK public debate about transgenic cropsPublic Understanding of Science 14CrossRef Google Scholar

Royal Academy of Engineering and The Royal Society 2004 Nanoscience and Nanotechnologies: Opportunities and UncertaintiesLondonThe Royal SocietyGoogle Scholar

Royal Geographical Society 2002 www.rgs.org

Royal Society 1985 The Public Understanding of ScienceLondonThe Royal SocietyGoogle Scholar

Royal Society 2001 www.royalsoc.ac.uk/scienceinsociety

Stilgoe, J. 2007 Nanodialogues: Experiments in Public Engagement with ScienceLondonDemosGoogle Scholar

Thomas, G.Durant, J. 1987 Why should we promote the public understanding of science?Scientific Literacy Papers1Google Scholar

Wilsdon, J.Willis, R. 2004 See-Through Science: Why Public Engagement Needs to Move UpstreamLondonDemosGoogle Scholar

Wynne, B. 1990 ‘Knowledges in context’, paper presented at the conferencePolicies and Publics for Science and TechnologyScience MuseumLondon7Google Scholar

Wynne, B. 1995 Public understanding of scienceJasanoff, S.Markle, G. E.Petersen, J. C.Pinch, T.The Handbook of Science and Technology Studies361Thousand Oaks, CASageGoogle Scholar

Ziman, J. 1990 ‘Public understanding of science’, paper presented at the conferencePolicies and Publics for Science and TechnologyScience MuseumLondon7Google Scholar