Abstract
Foreword by Lord Jenkin of Roding
There is a blissful moment in the Moliere play, Le Bourgeois Gentilhomme, when the principal character, M. Louis Jourdain, discovers that all his life he has been talking prose. There may be a few readers of this Study, ‘Practical Guidelines for Developing Public Dialogue’ who experience a similar revelation – that in their efforts to engage the public in dialogue about science, they have actually been doing it quite well.
However, I suspect that there are many more who will find the advice and guidance in this Study opens up pathways to a much more effective process of dialogue with the public than they have so far been able to tread. When the House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology published its Report ‘Science and Society’ in March 2000, we found an audience in the science community that was ready to heed our main messages, but which was uncertain how to set about it.
Perhaps our single most important message was that aiming at ‘the public understanding of science’ was no longer enough to engage today’s more sceptical and less deferential public. The phrase has a condescending, even demeaning, tone which, so far from engaging the public in debate, tends to turn people off. In its place, we called for a new mood of dialogue: instead of the one way, top down process of seeking to increase peoples’ understanding of science, there has to be a two way dialogue, where those seeking to communicate the wonders of their science, also listen to the concerns of the public. “Dialogue requires ears as well as voices” was how one of our witnesses put it.
Do not misunderstand me; since the Committee on the Public Understanding of Science was set up in 1985, a great deal of excellent work has been done. Indeed, it is the very success of the Committee’s work, evidenced by the large numbers of scientists and engineers who have been stimulated to communicate their work to a wider public, that makes it appropriate now to find ways to do this that are better attuned to engaging today’s public. Since ‘Science and Society’ was published, a lot has been happening as new efforts are
made to engage with the public and stimulate public debate. But as the Chairman of the Sub-Committee which produced that Report, I have become uncomfortably aware that, while calling for dialogue, we left it to others to discover how this might be done.
This Study, commissioned jointly by the Research Councils UK and OST, goes a long way to meet this need. I warmly commend it to all those who, whether as scientists and technologists, or as concerned citizens, may find themselves at one or other end of that process of dialogue for which we called.
There is a blissful moment in the Moliere play, Le Bourgeois Gentilhomme, when the principal character, M. Louis Jourdain, discovers that all his life he has been talking prose. There may be a few readers of this Study, ‘Practical Guidelines for Developing Public Dialogue’ who experience a similar revelation – that in their efforts to engage the public in dialogue about science, they have actually been doing it quite well.
However, I suspect that there are many more who will find the advice and guidance in this Study opens up pathways to a much more effective process of dialogue with the public than they have so far been able to tread. When the House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology published its Report ‘Science and Society’ in March 2000, we found an audience in the science community that was ready to heed our main messages, but which was uncertain how to set about it.
Perhaps our single most important message was that aiming at ‘the public understanding of science’ was no longer enough to engage today’s more sceptical and less deferential public. The phrase has a condescending, even demeaning, tone which, so far from engaging the public in debate, tends to turn people off. In its place, we called for a new mood of dialogue: instead of the one way, top down process of seeking to increase peoples’ understanding of science, there has to be a two way dialogue, where those seeking to communicate the wonders of their science, also listen to the concerns of the public. “Dialogue requires ears as well as voices” was how one of our witnesses put it.
Do not misunderstand me; since the Committee on the Public Understanding of Science was set up in 1985, a great deal of excellent work has been done. Indeed, it is the very success of the Committee’s work, evidenced by the large numbers of scientists and engineers who have been stimulated to communicate their work to a wider public, that makes it appropriate now to find ways to do this that are better attuned to engaging today’s public. Since ‘Science and Society’ was published, a lot has been happening as new efforts are
made to engage with the public and stimulate public debate. But as the Chairman of the Sub-Committee which produced that Report, I have become uncomfortably aware that, while calling for dialogue, we left it to others to discover how this might be done.
This Study, commissioned jointly by the Research Councils UK and OST, goes a long way to meet this need. I warmly commend it to all those who, whether as scientists and technologists, or as concerned citizens, may find themselves at one or other end of that process of dialogue for which we called.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Type | RCUK Report |
| Media of output | Report |
| Publisher | People Science and Policy Ltd, |
| Number of pages | 51 |
| Place of Publication | Hamilton House, Mabledon Place, London WC1H 9BB |
| Publication status | Published - 2002 |