Understanding 'science and the public'

10.5912/jcb73 ◽  
1969 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Jane Gregory
Keyword(s):  
Public Sphere ◽  
Public Understanding Of Science ◽  
Public Understanding ◽  
Public Acceptance ◽  
Ongoing Task ◽  
Social Scientists ◽  
The Public ◽  
Understanding Of Science ◽  
The Public Sphere

Public acceptance of the products of biotechnology is an important issue for the industry. This paper looks at relevant academic and policy developments in the field of public understanding of science, which considers the role of science in the public sphere. It traces the interaction of scientists, social scientists and the public in the move from early 'deficit' conceptions of public understanding to more recent positions in which the public are seen as active participants in a variety of contexts for science. These newer conceptualisations could usefully contribute to the biotechnology industry's ongoing task of establishing constructive relations with its various publics.

scholarly journals The Croonian Lecture 2004 Risk: food, fact and fantasy

2005 ◽  
Vol 360 (1458) ◽  
pp. 1133-1144 ◽  
Author(s):  
John R Krebs
Keyword(s):  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Government Policy ◽  
Food Poisoning ◽  
Public Understanding Of Science ◽  
Public Understanding ◽  
Spongiform Encephalopathy ◽  
The Public ◽  
Understanding Of Science ◽  
The Individual

We all take risks, but most of the time we do not notice them. We are generally bad at judging the risks we take, and in the end, for some of us, this will prove fatal. Eating, like everything else in life, is not risk free. Is that next mouthful pure pleasure, or will it give you food poisoning? Will it clog your arteries as well as filling your stomach? This lecture weaves together three strands—the public understanding of science, the perception of risk and the role of science in informing government policy—as it explains how food risks are assessed and managed by government and explores the boundaries between the responsibilities of the individual and the regulator. In doing so, it draws upon the science of risk assessment as well as our attitudes to risk in relation to issues such as bovine spongiform encephalopathy, dioxins in salmon and diet and obesity.

What do we know about “don't knows”? Or, contexts of “ignorance”

1996 ◽  
Vol 35 (1) ◽  
pp. 15-37 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jill Turner ◽  
Mike Michael
Keyword(s):  
The Self ◽  
Public Understanding Of Science ◽  
Public Understanding ◽  
Late Modernity ◽  
The Public ◽  
Political Statement ◽  
Understanding Of Science ◽  
Don't Know Responses

This paper addresses the meanings of “ignorance” in the context of “don't know” responses to questionnaires. First, we consider some of the broader functions of questionnaires, suggesting that they reflect and mediate between particular types of institutions, respondents and society. We then unpack some of the meanings of “don't know” responses. Specifically, we argue that the “don't know” response is not merely a sign of deficit but, potentially, a potent political statement. Moreover, in relation to studies of the public understanding of science, it can be employed as a resource by people reflexively to express their identity through their relationship with science. Next we consider ignorance in the more expansive contexts of late modernity, which include concerns about the ambivalent role of science in general, the transgressive quality of biotechnology in particular and the impetus to narrate the self. Consideration of these factors, we argue, may be useful for further interrogation of the meanings of “don't know” responses.

Golem science and the public understanding of science: from deficit to dilemma

1999 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. 75-92 ◽  
Author(s):  
Simon Locke
Keyword(s):  
Knowledge Production ◽  
Public Understanding Of Science ◽  
Public Understanding ◽  
Social Scientists ◽  
Flip Flop ◽  
Deficit Model ◽  
The Public ◽  
Understanding Of Science ◽  
Knowledge Claims ◽  
Unrealistic Expectations

“Golem science” is Harry Collins and Trevor Pinch's humanized image of science, filled with irresolution, that they wish to substitute for the “god-like” image of definitive knowledge characteristic of public presentations of science. This god-like image creates unrealistic expectations that fuel “anti-scientific” reactions when unmet. This paper argues that the “flip-flop” view set forth by Collins and Pinch is a deficit model that positions the public as sociologically incompetent. It reflects the dilemma of professional social scientists who deconstruct science whilst appealing to the authority of science. This dilemma is an outcome of a deeper tension within science between the universal status of knowledge claims and the particular, human conditions of knowledge production. Drawing on discursive (or rhetorical) psychology, I show that this tension plays out in the rhetorical organization of scientific discourse in the form of a characteristic contrast between empiricist and contingent repertoires. A similar tension is discernible in everyday, mundane reasoning, which suggests that a golem image of science is already present in commonsense understanding alongside the “god-like” image. Thus, the public understanding of science is dilemmatically constituted, providing the conditions of argumentation with science seen in “antiscience”—itself a “folk devil” and rhetorical label. The analysis in this paper is illustrated using the example of creationism, which arises from an argumentative engagement with science that draws on the resources provided by the dilemma of science in conjunction with other resources drawn from Christianity. There is no simple “flip-flop” here. Further research into rhetorical reasoning in public understanding is called for on the grounds that greater appreciation of this is needed alongside golem science to improve relations between scientists and the public.

The public understanding of science or the scientific understanding of the public? A review of the social context of the `new genetics'

1995 ◽  
Vol 4 (3) ◽  
pp. 223-232 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sally Macintyre
Keyword(s):  
Social Context ◽  
Cost Benefit ◽  
Social Institutions ◽  
Scientific Understanding ◽  
Public Understanding Of Science ◽  
Public Understanding ◽  
The Public ◽  
The Social ◽  
Understanding Of Science

The `new genetics' have great potential for improving human health. In order for this potential to be realized, attempts to improve the public understanding of science should be complemented by attempts to improve our scientific understanding of the public. It is important to investigate existing popular understandings and practices, in relation to the role of heredity in human disease, chance and calculation of cost benefit ratios in situations of uncertainty, the management of the role of being `at risk' for particular diseases, and the ways in which individual and collective interests are balanced in a variety of health and welfare fields. Above all, we need to study what individuals, families and social institutions actually know, feel and do in relation to the `new genetics', rather than basing policy on assumptions about what they might know, feel or do.

‘Nullius in verba’ and ‘nihil in verbis’: public understanding of the role of language in science

1994 ◽  
Vol 27 (1) ◽  
pp. 55-64 ◽  
Author(s):  
Clive Sutton
Keyword(s):  
Royal Society ◽  
School Science ◽  
Learning Activities ◽  
Public Understanding Of Science ◽  
Traditional View ◽  
Public Understanding ◽  
Scientific Language ◽  
The Public ◽  
Understanding Of Science

This paper is about how the motto of the Royal Society has sometimes been misread, but it is also about how such a misreading could arise at all, and why it persists. I argue that the error is intimately associated with a traditional view of scientific language as a medium for descriptive reporting, a view which has been very influential in schools, and is consequently perpetuated in the public understanding of science. Much new scholarship confirms that this ‘straightforward’ view of what scientists do can no longer be accepted at face value, and that the role of language in science is more intimate and subtle in its interpretive and persuasive qualities. A renewed study of the motto is interesting in itself, but it will also serve to introduce these wider matters. Perhaps it may help some more teachers to escape from those received ideas about language which have restricted the range of learning activities in school science, and discouraged a full attention to the words in which scientists choose to express their ideas.

Should You Be a Public Scientist?

2021 ◽  
pp. 375-380
Author(s):  
Dennis Meredith
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
Resource Depletion ◽  
Public Understanding Of Science ◽  
Public Understanding ◽  
The Public ◽  
It Impacts ◽  
Global Problems ◽  
The Media ◽  
Understanding Of Science

Deciding whether to be a “public scientist”—using the media spotlight to highlight important issues—means deciding whether one is a natural explainer. Also, it must be decided how much time and effort can be committed to such outreach and how it impacts research and other activities. Explaining research does offer satisfactions, in that the researcher is contributing to public understanding of science. One problem is that the coverage of science and technology is small and shrinking. That said, opportunities to reach the public directly through websites and social media are considerable. The role of public scientists and the importance of explaining research in general are becoming ever more critical because failure to bridge the information gulf between researchers and the public will hamper, perhaps tragically, our ability to solve the massive global problems we face—climate change, resource depletion, ecological damage, food security, and disease.

Vivent les differences: identifying audiences for a museum exhibition

1994 ◽  
Vol 3 (3) ◽  
pp. 277-290 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lawrence Fitzgerald ◽  
Pauline Webb
Keyword(s):  
Public Understanding Of Science ◽  
Public Understanding ◽  
Civil Aviation ◽  
Audience Research ◽  
Museum Visitors ◽  
The Public ◽  
Understanding Of Science ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Visitor Survey

This paper describes the methodology and presents the main findings of a front-end exhibition evaluation carried out by staff at the Museum of Science and Industry in Manchester, UK, in 1991. A visitor survey was used to evaluate ideas for a forthcoming exhibition on civil aviation and air travel. This research is placed in the context of the role of museums in the public understanding of science and of audience research in museums. The survey findings demonstrate the existence of divisions of interests among museum visitors, particularly according to gender. These differences must be recognized and accommodated by the definition of target audiences if exhibitions are to function as effective channels for developing public understanding of science and technology.

Industrial Influences on the Development of the Communication of Science in the UK

1998 ◽  
Vol 12 (3) ◽  
pp. 178-180
Author(s):  
Lynne Gornall ◽  
Brychan Thomas
Keyword(s):  
Science Communication ◽  
Technology Policy ◽  
Public Understanding Of Science ◽  
Public Understanding ◽  
The Public ◽  
Strategic Review ◽  
Understanding Of Science ◽  
The Uk ◽  
Contemporary Context

The paper traces the role of industrial influences on the development of the ‘public understanding of science’, showing the initiatives as aspects of wider debates, articulated by key figures and groups in the field. In the contemporary context, this is related to the 1993 national strategic review of UK science and technology policy and the development in universities of the new field of ‘science communication’.

Understanding understanding: a model for the public learning of radioactivity

1999 ◽  
Vol 8 (4) ◽  
pp. 267-284 ◽  
Author(s):  
Steve Alsop
Keyword(s):  
Informal Learning ◽  
Background Radiation ◽  
Public Understanding Of Science ◽  
Public Understanding ◽  
Change Model ◽  
Potential Health ◽  
The Public ◽  
Understanding Of Science ◽  
Conceptual Change Model

While much of the work in the public understanding of science has focused on the public's appreciation of science and their familiarity with key scientific concepts, understanding the processes involved in learning science has largely been ignored. This article documents a study of how particular members of the public learn about radiation and radioactivity, and proposes a model to describe their learning—the Informal Conceptual Change Model [ICCM]. ICCM is a multidimensional framework that incorporates three theoretical dimensions—the cognitive, conative, and affective. The paper documents each of these dimensions, and then illustrates the model by drawing upon data collected in a case study. The emphasis of the analysis is on understanding how the members of the public living in an area with high levels of background radiation learn about the science of this potential health threat. The summarizing comments examine the need for a greater awareness of the complexities of informal learning.

The gender dimension of the 2020 Belarusian protest: Does female engagement contribute to the establishment of gender equality?

2021 ◽  
pp. 2336825X2110291
Author(s):  
Vasil Navumau ◽  
Olga Matveieva
Keyword(s):  
Public Sphere ◽  
Gender Equality ◽  
Presidential Elections ◽  
The Public ◽  
The Public Sphere ◽  
Depth Interviews

One of the distinctive traits of the Belarusian ‘revolution-in-the-making’, sparked by alleged falsifications during the presidential elections and brutal repressions of protest afterwards, has been a highly visible gender dimension. This article is devoted to the analysis of this gender-related consequences of protest activism in Belarus. Within this research, the authors analyse the role of the female movement in the Belarusian uprising and examine, and to which extent this involvement expands the public sphere and contributes to the changes in gender-related policies. To do this, the authors conducted seven semi-structured in-depth interviews with the gender experts and activists – four before and four after the protests.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document