When it comes to the crunch, we, the masses, are distinctly ambivalent about science and technology. This is an outlook sharply reflected in the press where science is both saviour - that will cure disease, solve global warming, take us into space and generate more food - and potent threat - that will create monstrous hybrid creatures, make bombs, vivisect apes and unleash untold disease and poison upon us.
Indeed a 1990s Eurobarometer survey of public perceptions of biotechnology, that included over 16,000 respondents, revealed exactly this dichotomy. There is widespread support for the medical application of genetic biotechnologies, but agricultural technologies that create hybrid species of plants and animals for food or research are seen as frightening and morally less acceptable.
Both the fears and the hopes are understandable, as science and technology have the power to transform our lives, for better or worse. But this duality of feeling leads to extreme stereotyping in which neither fears nor hopes are presented or debated in a very helpful or realistic way by press and public alike.
Stereotyping of fears and inaccurate reporting of science, in turn, leads scientists to feel they are misrepresented and unappreciated in society at large. Susan Greenfield has bemoaned: “The pride and scorn for science, that saw most people through the 20th century, is now giving way to fear. Why the change? Jargon and methodology, more than ever, are raising the wall between the cognoscenti and Everyone Else.” Despite her aptitude for clear and concise science communication, public surveys show Greenfield to be wide of the mark in this case. Negative attitudes have always been around - think of Frankenstein - but positive and hopeful perspectives have always co-existed with them.
Greenfield’s sentiments are not uncommon within the ranks of the science establishment. A dangerous situation has arisen in which scientists feel that public fears stem from a lack of public understanding. If only the masses were ‘scientifically literate’, then we could all have a decent debate and be done. A very recent survey carried out by the Royal Society is revealing in this regard. The dominant reason given by scientists for engaging in public communication, is to ‘educate’ the non-specialist, rather than engage in debate or dialogue.
Why should we, the public, make the necessary effort to teach ourselves the jargon and methodology embedded within science? In any case, this is a completely implausible proposition. Modern science consists of many highly specialised disciplines which scientists themselves find hard traverse. And yet, the poor old public are expected to become fully conversant right across the board!
Barriers to science communication existing within the scientific professions then serve to push scientists and public even further apart. The latest Royal Society survey of scientists reveals a culture in which direct engagement with public is seen as bad for career progression. Science communicators are viewed as ‘not good enough’ for an academic career and are commonly described by such words as ‘light’ or ‘fluffy’.
A further, more serious, beef that scientists have, is that time spent in public engagement is time spent away from the lab, and as there isn’t any significant funding for communicating to the masses, it is not deemed a priority. The Royal Society are hoping to address this problem by creating a climate in which funding bodies and academic institutions provide better incentives for science communication.
