Guest post: If science were a play would its audience be the ‘public’?
Delegates at one of the discussion groups at the Science and Citizenship event.
In December 2010, the Trust co-convened a conference on Science and Citizenship, exploring the role of science communication and engagement in society. Juliette Mutheu reports.
One of my fondest memories of the London Film Festival is hearing the thoughts of the directors and producers in the Q&A sessions that often followed a film. Such sessions provide the public with an understanding and appreciation of a topic, be it in cinema, theatre or politics, not to mention bringing the topic closer home when addressing its relevance in society. This led me to wonder what would happen if scientists took part in similar sessions with members of the public following the publication of a major discovery. Such sessions may help to redress the perception of science as something too complex to be understood by non-scientists.
Last month, the British Council, the British Science Association, the Commonwealth Foundation, SciDev.Net and the Wellcome Trust organised a Science and Citizenship event at the Wellcome Trust Conference Centre in London. Science communication experts from all over the world were invited to revisit the 2000 House of Lords Science and Technology report, celebrate the Commonwealth Foundation’s 2010 theme of Science, Technology and Society, reflect on the status of science communication today and hopefully generate a global science communication agenda for the future.
Across the world science communication is taking shape and it’s becoming increasingly necessary for those doing scientific research to engage the public with their work. The event presented several good examples along the lines of the House of Lords report’s four major themes: communicating uncertainty and risk, engaging the public, science education in schools and science and media. Japan’s Takeshi Kimura talked about Japanese consumers requiring consumer science literacy and industry realising that risk communication cannot be left to governments alone. El Zoheiry Hamid of Egypt discussed the RDI programme’s diverse science communication activities and its supporting framework for universities and research centres to establish public engagement units. On education, Ian Kennedy of New Zealand noted that while the science curriculum in New Zealand is good the way it is taught depends on factors such as assessment and perceived university requirements. Finally, Omer Cebeci presented the work of the Turkish research council, TUBITAK, which publishes popular monthly science magazines that have become reference source materials for school children, teachers and media.
The event had its shortcomings: all the contributions were from men, contrary to the view that many well-known science communicators are women. Although I had the opportunity to follow the likes of Elizabeth Pisani and Nadia El-Awady’s footsteps in presenting my experience of science communication in Kenya (where I help to run the Kenya Science Cafes), I would have loved to hear from the experiences of other female science communicators in attendance, such as Professor Kathy Sykes from the University of Bristol, Angella Atero from the Uganda National Council of Science and Technology and Chloe Sheppard from Research Councils UK. Similarly, there was neither much coverage on citizenship nor discussions on why we need to engage the public and what we want to achieve with all the information about science. A colleague felt that while most science communicators at the conference thought in terms of informing and engaging the public, they were hesitant to call their methods science ‘PR’ or even ‘marketing.’ Nonetheless, my colleagues and I were impressed with the numerous examples of science communication activities in other countries.
I took three things from the event. First, the emphasis and need for science communication is increasing globally. Second, developing countries are following quickly in the UK’s footsteps but are defining their own communication strategies adapted to engaging their public. Third, we need a global science communication network that offers ongoing support and collaboration, promoting best practice from around the world, while also allowing for innovation and creativity. It makes no sense to work alone when a foundation of best practices exist.
Three years ago, I decided to change career from science research to public engagement. I remember reading the House of Lords report and wondering what an African version of the report might look like. Today, I am impressed and delighted by the science communication activities taking place in Africa, and around the world.
Juliette Mutheu is a training fellow in science communication at the KEMRI-Wellcome Trust Research Programme in Nairobi, Kenya. She is currently undertaking an MSc. in science communication at Imperial College London.
Fascinating post, Juliette, especially regarding sci comms in Africa.
Your comment about lack of women is well-made, and a source of consternation among my own circle of scientists/wrtiers/communicators. I, also, would like to be involved in a discussion of *why* and what we hope to achieve.
Yes i do feel that there is a lot of sci comms activities happening on the continent probably not called science communication or public engagement! Would be interesting to find what science communication activities are being used to pick on useful lessons. Ahhhh about the ‘why’ i usually find that i do question why am communicating science and what it is that i intend to achieve and if it is achieved. I think would have been quite interesting to have ‘public’ voice at the event to get feedback from the intended recipient of the science communication activities we do.
me parece excelente la forma pero hay que tener cuidados con el hurto de de propiedad intelectual
en mi caso no tengo apoyo del gobierno de mi país pero vivo de mis pacientes mejoran dolos con mi equipo estimación eléctrica cerebral para la hipertension
Creo que trabajar con cualquier gobierno es duro, pero es importante encontrar una manera de trabajar en colaboración. La ciencia, principalmente la buena ciencia se supone que es mejorar la vida de los pueblos y gobiernos que pueden poner la buena ciencia a la práctica los beneficios y el público lo reconoce en el tiempo. Sin embargo, dicho esto en el caso de que esto no es posible, i supongo que uno tiene que seguir adelante con ella y hacer lo que hay que hacer a pesar de los inconvenientes.
Yes i do feel that there is a lot of sci comms activities happening on the continent probably not called science communication or public engagement! Would be interesting to find what science communication activities are being used to pick on useful lessons. Ahhhh about the ‘why’ i usually find that i do question why am communicating science and what it is that i intend to achieve and if it is achieved. I think would have been quite interesting to have ‘public’ voice at the event to get feedback from the intended recipient of the science communication activities we do.