Written evidence submitted by the Royal Institution

Background

1. The Royal Institution (Ri) submits evidence to this inquiry as an organisation with extensive experience of science communication across four main pillars: live events for the public and young people, broadcast, digital and heritage. All programmes focus on encouraging people to think more deeply about the wonders and applications of science.
2. The Ri believes that to harness science for the maximum benefit of society requires a healthy and dynamic interaction between science, culture and society, something it has pioneered for over 200 years.
3. The Ri is an independent charity that does not receive any government funding. Its income primarily comes from sponsorship, donations, membership, ticket income and venue hire.
4. The Ri has an extensive programme of lectures, discussions and short courses for the public.
5. Activities for young people focus on problem solving and inquiry-led learning. They take place at the Ri and around 140 locations throughout the UK.
6. The CHRISTMAS LECTURES were initiated in 1825 at a time when there was very little formal education for young people in science. They were first broadcast in 1936 just seven weeks after the launch of the BBC’s Television Service. Today they are broadcast on BBC4 to UK audiences of 2–4 million and subsequently to international audiences via Ri digital channels.
7. Digital films produced by the Ri on the Ri YouTube channel have received over 17 million views worldwide. With over 200,000 subscribers it has the largest YouTube audience base of any UK science organisation.
8. The Ri heritage research programme looks at the interaction between science, culture and society over the last 200 years. 

Trends in attitudes to science, and public engagement with science

9. Discussion about science online is covered in the BIS ‘Public attitudes to science’ 2014 report. However, this report focuses almost exclusively on online science in the news, rather than online science for education, enrichment or entertainment purposes. In the Ri’s experience, the use of digital tools – and in particular films on YouTube and Vimeo – can be powerful ways of facilitating learning and discussions about science. More information on this can be found in Paragraphs 23–27. 
10. The UK is regarded worldwide as having particular expertise in science communication. Staff at the Ri have travelled in recent years to China, Colombia, Japan, Kazakhstan, Malaysia, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, South Korea, Spain, Sweden and Thailand to talk about the work of the Ri and also the varied, flourishing landscape of science communication in the UK. The Ri regularly hosts visits for international delegations. Some of these interactions have resulted in international partnerships. 
11. With expertise in science communication spanning over 200 years, the Ri takes a longer-term view of the effectiveness of science engagement activities. For example, the Ri has a PhD student looking at the interaction between science, culture and society in the period 1940–1985. This period is significant because the phrase ‘The public understanding of science’ was just beginning to be adopted, as evidenced by the first conference of that name organised at the Ri in 1943. Initial findings indicate that during this period much of the response of the scientific community to these issues was framed in terms of the ‘Two Cultures’ debate. For example C.P. Snow changed his test for scientific literacy from thermodynamics to molecular biology at a televised Royal Institution Friday Evening Discourse. Whatever the merits or otherwise of this particular debate, it nevertheless illustrates the significance of science as an integral part of broader culture. As appreciation of this should be one of the outcomes of continuing efforts in science communication.
12. A longer-term view is also important when looking at the UK’s experience in managing issues such as GM and BSE, for example. Findings have shown that a top down, positivist attitude is not effective at engaging the public in a meaningful discussion about science[1]. In other words, it is not enough for the scientific community to push content at people, but instead should provide open spaces to discuss topics further. Discussions should: (a) be framed within a wider cultural context and, when relevant, include moral, social, economic and ethical perspectives; and (b) show the possible downsides of science, its limitations, its future directions and how it cannot always provide the ‘right’ answer. Open spaces are not limited to formal stakeholder dialogues or consensus conferences; they can include informal discussions, lectures and debates.
13. Science communication activities that are organised with the primary purpose of increasing public trust of science are misguided. The Ri instead actively encourages people to think deeply and critically about science. This is because engagement with the public is not a ‘problem’ that can be ‘fixed’. It is a fundamental necessity for the proper functioning of science and must be viewed as a long-term commitment for organisations and individuals – like the Ri – who wish to see science harnessed for the maximum benefit of society.
14. The Ri measures whether or not its public audiences think more deeply about science after coming to Ri events. For example, in the 2014/2015 academic year it found: (a) nearly 80% of people came to find out more about the subject; (b) post event, over 90% reported learning something new, and 80% wanted to find out even more after they left. NB. Over 70% of this audience had a general interest in the topic under discussion, as opposed to those working (5%) or studying (11%) in the field.

The balance of effort needed to increase public engagement in science by 'new audiences' and by the 'already interested'

15. Efforts to increase public engagement to underserved audiences are applauded by the Ri. However, it is not always easy to reach out to them with a meaningful science experience or one that encourages prolonged engagement.
16. There are many barriers to access. These can include lack of proximity to science centres, festivals, university outreach departments etc., or having no family members with a background or interest in science, i.e. having low family ‘science capital’[2]. 
17. The Ri has experience at trying to reach underserved audiences with a film project for non-science savvy parents of pre-school and primary children. Our evaluation report can be found here: http://rigb.org/blog/2015/june/experimental-evaluation 
18. Lessons learned from this project include: (i) The Ri was successful in producing stimulating content suitable for non-science savvy parents. And the content was popular – thousands of people watched the videos. (ii) Parents from a range of backgrounds were featured in the films in order to appeal to a diverse audience, and familiar situations were used to increase confidence and uptake. (iii) Non-science savvy parents are probably not likely to seek out online science content in the first place, so the process of finding the target audience requires much more thought, and using schools to reach parents might be an option.
19. This project also demonstrates another key trend in this field. For new forms of science communication that are intended to reach new kinds of audiences, it is not enough to produce a simple ‘tick box’ evaluation that just measures, for example, the number of people and what they thought of it. The intended audience and intended impact need to be clear from the start, and the evaluation should be a thoughtful analysis of the extent to which the project has been successful and what can be tried differently next time.   
20. The Ri believes that those less familiar with science do not necessarily need to be served ‘dumbed down’ science. Ri audiences respond well to being challenged outside their comfort zone. For example, the Ri Young Scientist Centre supported by L’Oréal organises experimental workshops for schools in disadvantaged areas, as well as students from Pupil Referral Units. Feedback from these initiatives show a marked positive change in attitude to science as is exemplified by one quote from an 8-year-old girl “Thank you. You have changed my life in science. I did not know you can do stuff like this. Thank you!!!” (See Paragraph 30 for more information about this programme).

Further steps needed by the media and broadcasters to improve the quality, accessibility and balance of their science coverage; and science coverage in broadcasters' programme-making 

21. The Ri has a good working relationship with the BBC through the partnership on the CHRISTMAS LECTURES. It is a strong example of how a science organisation can work effectively with a broadcaster to produce entertaining programmes that cover science in depth and ignite a life-long passion for science in young people.
22. There is an appetite among broadcast programme makers (independent production companies as well as in-house production teams) to seek expertise from the Ri to increase and improve their science coverage. For example, the Ri has provided content and expertise for ITV’s ‘It’s Not Rocket Science’, Channel 4’s ‘Sunday Brunch’ and Radio 4’s ‘In Our Time’.
23. What is missing from the Science and Technology’ Committee’s terms of reference for this inquiry are questions about how digital platforms (and in particular films on YouTube, Vimeo and other similar platforms) are affecting the science communication landscape.
24. It is the Ri’s view that films on YouTube can be just as powerful as traditional broadcasting, and they have the potential to reach different audiences. For example, the Ri YouTube channel is popular with audience aged 18–35, an audience recognised to be difficult to reach by more traditional science communication efforts.
25. The Ri can make these claims because it has extensive experience in this area. The Ri YouTube channel has more subscribers (at over 200k) than any other UK science organisation. Some films have had over 1 million views, and collectively the channel has had over 17 million views since launch.
26. In line with the Ri’s aim to encourage people to think deeply and critically about science, this reach has been achieved with the Ri not compromising its depth of content. For example, hour-long, in depth science lectures are popular on the channel – on average they are watched around 70,000 times. Also, highly visual and popular YouTube demonstration videos that include dramatic explosions are accompanied by detailed explanations of the science behind them. However, it is important to note that content must be carefully crafted to appeal to YouTube audiences, i.e. it is not enough to just film a ‘talking head’ style video of a scientist discussing their work and expect this to automatically be watched by thousands of people. 
27. Online video brings with it a different experience to broadcast. For example, online viewers expect to be able to comment and interact with content and also with other viewers. Through the comments section, these viewers can be encouraged to interpret, discuss and make suggestions on the video’s science content. With the right facilitation, this can provide a powerful space in which to encourage and promote critical thinking.   

The communications strategies being taken to encourage young people to study STEM subjects in higher and further education, and to encourage those people towards STEM careers

28. Whilst the Ri believes that young people should be encouraged to consider a career in a STEM area, it also believes that all young people should be encouraged to develop and maintain a life-long interest in science irrespective of their final career choice. Having a society that is interested in science, informed about it and engaged in the questions that it raises is vital, and will ensure that science itself is harnessed for the maximum benefit of society.
29. The Ri believes that young people need to know that science is not just about remembering facts for an exam. Rather they should be shown that it is a creative process that involves the thrill of experimentation and discovery, and also the ability to think critically about what they are observing and how science is applied.
30. The Ri has two national programmes that encourage this type of inquiry-led learning. (i) The Ri Mathematics, Engineering and Computer Science Masterclasses that operate at around 140 locations throughout the UK. Ri Masterclasses are 6–10 week, in-depth programmes run in partnership with universities, industry and schools. They challenge young people to find solutions to real-life problems solved every day by people working in STEM fields. (ii) The Young Scientist Centres in London (in partnership with L’Oréal) and Preston (in partnership with the University of Central Lancashire) run school workshops throughout the year. Workshops for secondary students are more ambitious in scope than could be performed in many school practical science lessons; whilst for primary groups, experience of a laboratory setting can be extremely stimulating. Students leave having experienced the thrill of discovery and with a positive view to further engagement: 70% of attendees said their visit had changed their attitude to science in a very positive or a positive way. In addition 77% of respondents said that they now wanted to study science at a higher level.     
31. When engagement is thoughtful and meaningful in this way, it can have life-changing effects that go beyond a simple STEM or no-STEM career choice. For example, this feedback from a parent of a child who attended an Ri masterclass:
    “I just wanted to say thank you for the opportunity given to my son. At the start of the year he was experiencing low self-esteem and to be honest wasn’t really enjoying school. Since taking part in the masterclasses his confidence has increased… He now enjoys school and is looking forward to lots more courses and additional learning opportunities. The difference in him is remarkable. Thank you for your support. Thank you for being important in the life of a child.”

32. Seeing at the Ri does not receive government funds, it will not be commenting on ‘The extent to which public dialogue and consultation is being effectively used by Government in science and technology areas of policy-making’, or ‘The strategies and actions being taken by Government to foster public engagement and trust of science more widely, and high quality reporting of science in the media’.

April 2016