Joint written evidence submitted by Dr Simon Singh
and Professor Richard Wiseman (COM0048)
Submission to the Science and Technology Committee inquiry on how the Government, scientists, the media and others encourage and facilitate public awareness of – and engagement in – science.
This submission was written jointly by Dr Simon Singh (science writer) and Professor Richard Wiseman (University of Hertfordshire), who together have spent a total of 50 years working in several different areas of science engagement, including several bestselling books, award-winning documentaries, sell-out national tours, and online videos with 300 million views on YouTube.
To put our submission into context, we would like to explain that much of our work takes place outside of the mainstream science communication community and is not funded by grants. We believe that many science engagement projects could be improved in the following ways.
1. Define clear and important goals. Many projects do not assess the degree to which they have a real impact on a range of important issues, including, for example, the public’s perception of science, encouraging teenagers to pursue STEM degrees, attitudes towards key issues such as climate change & GM. Defining such goals would help assess the impact of these projects.
2. Don’t encourage or expect all researchers to make science engagement a priority. It is naïve to think that the majority of scientists have the skillset or motivation to be great communicators. Science communication is hard, and it requires scientists who will take it seriously by dedicating time and effort over a sustained period. It would be more beneficial to concentrate funding into a small number of large pots, and encourage anyone (including academics) to bid for the money. The goal should be to create a small number of highly skilled science communicators, who will have high profiles and high impact.
3. Encourage grass roots projects, such as blogging, podcasts, Skeptics in the Pub, and local talks by academics. This area is already highly active and effective (and unsubsidised). External bodies might support this by sharing best practice, putting speakers in touch with potential audiences and arranging additional media exposure.
4. YouTube has revolutionised science communication and arguably represents the most effective approach to science engagement for some communities. For example, the Numberphile YouTube channel has had over 170 million views and has over 1.5 million subscribers. We believe that no other maths outreach project has had this level of reach or impact. Resources could be used to support new and existing YouTube communicators.
5. We believe that the value of science festivals with high ticket prices is very limited. For example, tickets at the Cheltenham Science Festival can often cost £8 or more (plus booking fee), even though speakers are effectively giving their time for free and there is a large amount of sponsorship. It is hard to see how the money being invested is cost-effective in terms of reaching new audiences. In contrast, free science festivals and those charging lower ticket prices, such as Cambridge, should be applauded.
6. With respect to school children, we believe the focus should be moved away from science engagement and towards straightforward science education. One approach might be to move part of the science communication budget to schools, so that they can decide how they want to spend the money, as opposed to funding projects that those outside of education assume are good for schools.
7. In terms of inspiring the next generation of scientists, how do science engagement projects compare with improving the GCSE and A level curricula and tackling the shortage of qualified teachers? Students can receive a large amount of science engagement, but this will not help them earn a University place studying engineering if they have not been properly prepared by the curriculum and guided by an able teacher.
8. Sci-Art is one sector of the science engagement community. What is the evidence to show that this is cost-effective? For example, when £30,000 is spent on a Sci-Art project, will it achieve more than employing a teacher responsible for 6 classes for an entire year?
9. Any progress achieved by the science communication community can be rapidly undone by media scaremongering and sensationalism. There is currently no incentive for the press to report science in a responsible manner, so the science engagement community will always be fighting an uphill battle. Effort should be put into making the media a force for good, by reducing the number of poor stories and increasing the number of responsible stories. The Science Media Centre has made progress in this area, but there is still a very long way to go.
10. Perhaps most important of all, MPs need to be engaged with science. In order to develop a more scientifically engaged nation we need a more politicians who understand the scientific method and who are up to speed on major scientific issues. The Royal Society’s Pairing Scheme aims to tackle this issue by pairing about 30 scientists with 30 politicians each year. The scheme should be assessed and, if shown to be effective, expanded. In addition, one-day seminars for small groups of politicians (and available to all MPs) could have a major impact on scientific literacy in parliament at a relatively low cost.
April 2016