The Evolution of ‘Public Understanding of Science’: Public Engagement as a Tool of Science Policy in the UK
Abstract
This historical review surveys the evolution of the science–society relationship in post-war Britain. It observes the transformation since the 1980s of the idea of ‘public understanding of science’, in which scientists and laypeople differ by virtue of the scientific knowledge they have, into the idea of ‘public engagement which science’, in which scientists, laypeople and policy makers negotiate policy for future science and technology. We survey recent critiques of public engagement which draw attention to the ways in which it constructs particular publics, and which question its capacity to contribute to policy-making.
References
- Agricultural Biotechnology Council 2003. Press Release: GM Nation? –‘Public Meetings Do Not Equal Public Debate.’ Wednesday, 24th September, 2003.
- Adonis, Andrew and Geoff Mulgan 1994. ‘Back to Greece: The Scope for Direct Democracy.’ Demos Quarterly 3: 1–28.
- Alliage, issue 1, Autumn 1989.
- Bache, Ian 2003. ‘Governing through Governance: Education Policy Control Under New Labour.’ Political Studies 51: 300–314.
- Bauer, Martin 1997. ‘Misunderstanding Science? The Public Reconstruction of Science and Technology.’ British Journal of Sociology 8(1).
- Bauer, Martin and Ingrid Schoon 1993. ‘Mapping Variety in Public Understanding of Science.’ Public Understanding of Science 2(2), 141–155.
10.1088/0963-6625/2/2/004 Google Scholar
- Bauer, Martin W. and Jane Gregory 2007. ‘The Professionalisation of Science Communication in Britain: Implications for Science in the Public Sphere.’ Pp. 33–52 in Journalism, Science & Society: Science Communication between News Making and Public Relations, edited by Martin Bauer and Massimiano Bucci. London: Routledge.
- Bauer, Martin W., Nick Allum and Steve Miller 2007. ‘What can we learn from 25 years of PUS survey research? Liberating and expanding the agenda. Public Understanding of Science 16: 79.
- Beckett, Margaret. 6 November 2003. ‘Letter to Malcolm Grant.’
- Beder, Sharon 1999. ‘Public Participation or Public Relations?’, with commentaries by Gavan McDonell and Ben Selinger, Pp. 169–192 in Technology and Public Participation, edited by Brian Martin. Wollongong, Australia: Science and Technology Studies, University of Wollongong.
- Burke, Derek 2004. EMBO Report. 5: 432–436.
- Campbell, Scott and Ellen Townsend 2003. ‘Flaws Undermine Results of UK Biotech Debate.’ Nature 425: 559.
- Chandler, David 2001. ‘Active Citizens and the Therapeutic State: The Role of Democratic Participation in Local Government Reform.’ Policy and Politics 29: 3–14.
- Collins, Harry and Robert Evans 2002. ‘The Third Wave of Science Studies: Studies of Expertise and Experience.’ Social Studies of Science 32: 235–296.
- Collins, Harry and Robert Evans 2007. Rethinking Expertise. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
10.7208/chicago/9780226113623.001.0001 Google Scholar
- Collins, Harry and Trevor Pinch 1993. The Golem: What Everyone Should Know About Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Cook, Dee 2002. ‘Consultation for a Change? Engaging Users and Communities in the Policy Process.’ Social Policy and Administration 36: 516–531.
- COPUS. 1990. Copus Looks Forward: The Next Five Years. London: Royal Society
- Crowther, James Gerald 1967. Science in Modern Society. London: Cresset.
- Dawkins, Richard 1996. The Richard Dimbleby Lecture, BBC1, 12 November.
- Department of Trade and Industry 1996. Going Public: An Introduction to Communicating Science, Engineering and Technology. London: DTI.
- Department of Trade and Industry 2005. Annex B. Response to the Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering Report: Nanoscience and Nanotechnologies: Opportunities and Uncertainties London: DTI.
- Durant. John R., Geoffrey A. Evans and Geoffrey P. Thomas 1989. ‘The Public Understanding of Science.’ Nature 340: 11–14
- Durodie, Bill 2003. ‘Limitations of Public Dialogue About Science and the Rise of the New “Experts”.’ Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy 6: 82–92.
10.1080/1369823042000241285 Google Scholar
- Elam, Mark and Margareta Bertilsson 2003. ‘Consuming, Engaging and Confronting Science: The Emerging Dimensions of Scientific Citizenship.’ European Journal of Social Theory 6: 233–251.
10.1177/1368431003006002005 Google Scholar
- Evans, Geoffrey A. and John Durant 1995. ‘The Relationship between Knowledge and Attitudes in the Public Understanding of Science in Britain.’ Public Understanding of Science 4(1).
- Fayard, Pierre 1992. ‘Let's stop persecuting people who don't think like Galileo!’ Public Understanding of Science, 1: 15–16.
10.1088/0963-6625/1/1/003 Google Scholar
- GM Nation? 2003. ‘The Findings of the Public Debate.’ available at http://www.aebc.gov.uk/aebc/reports/gm_nation_report_final.pdf
- Giddens, Anthony 1998. The Third Way: The Renewal of Social Democracy. Cambridge: Polity Press.
- Godwin, Matthew 2005. ‘The Skylark Rocket, British Space Science and the European Space Research Organisation, 1957–1972.’ PhD Thesis, University of London.
- Gregory, Jane 2003. ‘Understanding “Science and the Public”.’ Journal of Commercial Biotechnology 10: 131–139.
10.1057/palgrave.jcb.3040066 Google Scholar
- Gregory, Jane and Steve Miller 1998. Science in Public: Communication, Culture and Credibility. New York, NY: Plenum.
- Gross, Paul and Norman Levitt 1994. Higher Superstition: the Academic Left and its Quarrels with Science. Baltimore and London: Johns Hopkins University Press.
- Grove-White, Robin, Phil MacNaughten, Sue Mayer and Brian Wynne 1997. Uncertain World: Genetically Modified Organisms, Food and Public Attitudes. Lancaster, CSEC: Lancaster University.
- Gustafsson, Ulla and Stephen Driver 2005. ‘Parents, Power and Public Participation: Sure Start, an Experiment in New Labour Governance.’ Social Policy & Administration 39: 528–543.
- Hilgartner, Stephen 1990. ‘The Dominant View of Popularization: Conceptual Problems, Political Uses.’ Social Studies of Science 20: 519–39.
- Holton, Gerald 1993. Science & Anti-Science. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
- Horst, Maja 2003. ‘Controversy and Collectivity: Articulations of Social and Natural Order in Mass-Mediated Representations of Biotechnology.’ PhD Thesis, Doctoral School on Knowledge and Management, Copenhagen Business School.
- House of Commons, Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee 2003. Conduct of the GM Public Debate, Eighteenth Report of Session 2002–03 London: HMSO.
- House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology 2000. Science and Society. London: HMSO.
- Involve website: http://www.involve.org.uk/home accessed December 10, 2007.
- Irwin, Alan 1995. Citizen Science: a Study of People, Expertise and Sustainable Development. London: Routledge.
- Irwin, Alan 2006. ‘The Politics of Talk: Coming to Terms with the “New” Scientific Governance.’ Social Studies of Science 36: 299–320.
- Irwin, Alan and Brian Wynne 1996. Misunderstanding Science? The Public Reconstruction of Science and Technology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
10.1017/CBO9780511563737 Google Scholar
- Jasanoff, Sheila 1997. ‘Civilization and Madness: The Great BSE Scare of 1996.’ Public Understanding of Science 6: 221–232.
- Joss, Simon and John R. Durant 1995. ‘The UK National Consensus Conference on Plant Biotechnology.’ Public Understanding of Science 4: 195–204.
10.1088/0963-6625/4/2/006 Google Scholar
- Roger Jowell, John Curtice, A. Park, L. Brook, K. Thomson and C. Bryson, eds. 1997. British Social Attitudes, the 14th Report; the end of Conservative Values? Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing.
- Lambert, Helen and Hilary Rose 1996. ‘Disembodied Knowledge: Making Sense of Medical Science.’ In Misunderstanding Science? The Public Reconstruction of Science and Technology, Irwin and Wynne, eds, Cambridge University Press, p. 65.
10.1017/CBO9780511563737.004 Google Scholar
- Layton, David, Edgar Jenkins, Sally Macgill and Angela Davey 1993. Inarticulate Science? Perspectives on the Public Understanding of Science and some Implications for Science Education. Driffield, UK: Studies in Education.
- Leadbeater, Charles and Geoff Mulgan 1994. ‘Lean Democracy and the Leadership Vacuum.’ Demos Quarterly 3: 45–82.
- Levy-Leblond, Jean-Marc 1992. ‘About misunderstandings about misunderstandings.’ Public Understanding of Science 1: 17–21
10.1088/0963-6625/1/1/004 Google Scholar
- Lewenstein, Bruce V. 1992. ‘Public Understanding of Science in the United States after WWII.’ Public Understanding of Science 1: 45–68.
10.1088/0963-6625/1/1/009 Google Scholar
- Lezuan, Javier and Linda Soneryd 2007. ‘Consulting Citizens: Technologies of Elicitation and the Mobility of Publics.’ Public Understanding of Science 16: 279–297.
- Lock, Simon Jay 2008. ‘Lost in Translations: Discourses, Boundaries and Legitimacy in the Public Understanding of Science in the UK.’ PhD thesis, University of London.
- Lock, Simon 2002. ‘Constructing the Nation: Science and Display at the Festival of Britain, 1951.’ MSc Thesis. Birkbeck, University of London.
- Marinetto, Michael 2003. ‘Who Wants to be an Active Citizen? The Politics and Practice of Community Involvement.’ Sociology 37: 103–120.
- Mayer, Sue 2003. ‘Avoiding the Difficult Issues: A GeneWatch UK Report on the Government's Response to the GM Nation? Public Debate.’ available at: http://www.genewatch.org/sub-531175, accessed on 16 February 2007.
- Michael, Mike 1992. ‘Lay Discourses of Science: Science in General, Science in Particular and Self.’ Science, Technology & Human Values 17(3): 313–333.
- Michie, Susan, H. Drake, M. Bobrow and T. Marteau 1995. ‘A Comparison of Public and Professionals’ Attitudes Towards Genetic Developments.’ Public Understanding of Science, 4, 243–253.
10.1088/0963-6625/4/3/003 Google Scholar
- Miller, Jon D. 1993. ‘Theory and Measurement in the Public Understanding of Science: a Rejoinder to Bauer and Schoon.’ Public Understanding of Science 2(3), 235–243.
10.1088/0963-6625/2/3/004 Google Scholar
- National Consumer Council 2003. Memorandum submitted as evidence to the House of Commons, Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee. 2003. Conduct of the GM Public Debate, Eighteenth Report of Session 2002–03. London: HMSO.
- Polanyi, Michael 1962. ‘The Republic of Science: Its Political and Economic Theory.’ Minerva 1: 54–74.
- Pollack, John and David Steven 1997. Now for the Science Bit – Concentrate! Communicating Science. River Path Associates. http://www.riverpath.com/library/pdf/now_for_the_science.pdf, accessed June 17, 2008.
- Public Debate Steering Board 2003. GM Nation? The Findings from the Public Debate. London: Department of Trade and Industry.
- RCEP 1998. Setting Environmental Standards. London: HMSO.
- RCUK 2002. Dialogue with the Public: Practical Guidelines. Swindon: Research Councils UK.
- Rowe, Gene, Tom Horlick-Jones, John Walls and Nick Pidgeon 2005. ‘Difficulties in Evaluating Public Engagement Initiatives: Reflections on an Evaluation of the UK GM Nation? Public Debate About Transgenic Crops.’ Public Understanding of Science 14: 331–352.
- Rowe, Rosemary and Michael Shepherd 2002. ‘Public Participation in the NHS: No Closer to Citizen Control?’ Social Policy and Administration 36: 275–290.
- Royal Society 1985. The Public Understanding of Science. London: Royal Society.
- RSA guidance http://www.techforum.org.uk This guidance was available online from 2005–2007.
- Save British Science 1986. Save British science. The Times, 13 January.
- Silverstone, Roger 1990. Communicating science to the public. Paper given at the conference ‘Policies and publics for science and technology’, Science Museum, London, 7–11 April.
- Stirling, Andy 2005. ‘Opening up or closing down? Analysis, participation and power in the social appraisal of technology.’ In Science and Citizens: Globalisation and the Challenges of Engagement, edited by Melissa Leach, Ian Scoones and Alan Irwin. London, UK: Zed Books.
- Stocking, S. Holly and Lisa W. Holstein 1993. ‘Constructing and Reconstructing Scientific Ignorance: Ignorance Claims in Science and Journalism.’ Science Communication 15: 186–210.
- Thorpe, Charles and Jane Gregory forthcoming. ‘Engaging the Market: Technology, Participation, and Advanced Capitalism.’. Submitted.
- Wilsdon, James and Rebecca Willis 2003. See-Through Science: Why Public Engagement Needs to Move Upstream. London: Demos.
- Wolpert, Lewis 1992. The Unnatural Nature of Science. London: Faber.
- Wynne, Brian 1992. ‘Public Understanding of Science Research: New Horizons or Hall of Mirrors?’ Public Understanding of Science 1(1): 37–43.
10.1088/0963-6625/1/1/008 Google Scholar
- Wynne, Brian 1994. ‘Public Understanding of Science.’ P. 361 in Handbook of Science & Technology Studies, edited by S. Jasanoff, T. Pinch, G. E. Markle and J. Petersen. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
- Wynne, Brian 1991. ‘Knowledges in Context.’ Science, Technology and Human Values 16: 111–121 London: Sage.
- Yearley, Steven 1996. ‘Nature's Advocates: Putting Science to Work in Environmental Organisations.’ In Misunderstanding Science? The Public Reconstruction of Science and Technology, Irwin and Wynne, eds, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, p. 172.
10.1017/CBO9780511563737.009 Google Scholar
- Yearley, Steven 2000. ‘What Does Science Mean in the “Public Understanding of Science”.’ P. 217 in Between Trust and Understanding: the Public, Science and Technology, edited by Meinolf Deirkes and Claudia Von Grote. London: Routledge.
- Ziman, John 1990. ‘Public Understanding of Science.’ Science, Technology and Human Values 16: 99–105.
