Written evidence submitted by the Academy of Social Sciences and its Campaign for Social Science (COM0080)

We are writing on behalf of the Academy of Social Sciences and its Campaign for Social Science in response to the Science and Technology Committee’s Inquiry into Science Communication. The Academy of Social Sciences is the national academy of academics, learned societies, and practitioners in the social sciences, composed of around 1,000 individual Fellows, 41 Learned Societies, and a number of affiliate members, together representing nearly 90,000 social scientists. Our mission is to promote social science in the United Kingdom for public benefit. The Academy’s Campaign for Social Science, which is sponsored by a coalition of 51 universities, learned societies, charities and publishers, furthers this mission by promoting policies that support social science in the UK.

We welcome this Inquiry, and hope that the Committee will ensure its remit covers communication and engagement with the full breadth of the UK’s research base, including the social sciences. In a debate that can sometimes be dominated by STEM perspectives, the opportunities to strengthen communication and engagement with the social sciences deserve greater attention. Rigorous social science provides insight into the world around us, helping explain the socio-economic context in which science, technology, and innovation necessarily interact. Moreover, the social sciences also have a vital role to play in helping Government to understand how to improve communication and public engagement across the board. Social science research can thus help define the parameters of this debate, assess the current situation, and identify future strategies for engagement with science.[1]

Successive UK governments can be proud of the shift in their approach to science communication in recent decades. The ‘deficit model’ – that assumes problems of science communication are due primarily to a lack of public knowledge or understanding – has been effectively challenged by social science research as recognised in the House of Lords Science and Society Report, 2000.  Instead, the move has been towards one of public engagement and dialogue, which we welcome.[2] This Inquiry itself demonstrates a commitment to a strategy intended to facilitate awareness, trust, and innovation. Below we raise a few points that may be useful for the Inquiry to consider.

The first issue we would highlight for consideration is what we teach children and young people about science, and how we do so. In a recent collection of essays from the British Science Association, whose mission is to embed science more deeply into British culture and society, its Chair, Lord Willetts, pointed out that over-specialisation at an early age tends to entrench a divide of ‘two cultures’, while its CEO Imran Khan highlighted the potential benefits to society of moving to an education system that allows for the study of today’s largest scientific challenges like “climate change, alongside its historical, geographic, and political elements.”[3]

This means not only teaching a range of scientific facts and theories, but also fostering understanding of the scientific approach – weighing evidence, disproving theories, assessing risk, and handling uncertainty – and how it can be applied more broadly. For the majority of school students, who will not go on to be professional scientists or mathematicians, it is important that they understand these issues – that science is neither a matter of blind faith nor relativistic beliefs, but an approach to evidence. Various curricula have attempted to do this – for example the OCR’s Twenty first century Science suites, based on research carried out by the Nuffield Foundation – but have yet to be widely rolled-out.  These approaches challenge young people to engage with the process of science in specific and precise contexts, so that they learn both facts and how science is carried out, with evidence, not opinion, as the defining feature. The Academy and its Campaign would welcome an approach to school science education that considers these issues, and which engages the citizens of tomorrow with some understanding of what it means to take a scientific approach.

The usefulness of the evidence from social science also needs to be kept in mind when considering science communication aimed at the wider public. In looking at issues such as climate change or public health, it continues to be important to engage publics in the ways that scientists make discoveries or policy recommendations. Engagement with these issues also benefits from considering not only the science, but also the geographical and social policy questions that flow from it.

Second, social science evidence emphasises the importance of not treating the ‘public’ as monolithic, recognising its diversity and demography in order to develop more accurate knowledge about public concern, levels of awareness and interest, and the ways of learning, engagement, and needs of different groups.[4] Recent research into public attitudes towards and engagement with science, such as King’s College London’s Culture Tracking Study[5] and the 2014 Public Attitudes to Science (PAS) report,[6] for example, highlight the impact of gender and age on public engagement with science. Such social science research helps us learn why people participate, and how to help engage them – and their concerns – with science.

This body of evidence highlights the importance of efforts like Sciencewise, which has helped policy makers engage in more fruitful and meaningful dialogue with publics on issues ranging from shale gas to the disposal of nuclear waste. Such efforts at dialogue help identify the range of perceptions within our society regarding the social and ethical implications, costs, and even political risks of particular scientific endeavours. For this reason, continued resourcing of Sciencewise or similar efforts would be welcomed by the Academy and its Campaign.

Of course, dialogue does not necessarily imply that a public consensus will be reached. Scientific legitimacy in democratic societies is strengthened, however, when we can anticipate what issues will be contentious for a variety of publics, and ensure that the scientific issues, as well as their social policy implications, can be addressed in a way that increases our understanding of the difference between the two. 

Indeed, the Government’s Chief Scientific Adviser, Sir Mark Walport, made a similar point in his 2015 annual report. He notes that “Debates about risk are often highly technical while, at the same time, being at least as much about values and choices, about who benefits and who pays.” It is encouraging to see Sir Mark Walport, and departmental chief scientists, talking with increasing frequency and conviction about the need for more joined-up work across disciplinary silos to tackle thorny social and environmental problems, and to ensure that science communication considers not only the underlying STEM disciplines, but also the evidence about their implications in particular contexts. 

There is no recipe book for successful science communication. A simple set of procedures for public engagement cannot be followed, as different issues will present distinct challenges and opportunities. The continuing evolution of the web, and the ability to reach out in different ways to a variety of groups with specific questions or concerns, presents greater opportunities for more agile and differentiated engagement. Yet, there is still great public enthusiasm for lectures, demonstrations and events – performing science, not just showing the end results. For this reason, the Committee’s inquiry presents an opportunity for the reinvigoration of public engagement; properly resourced, this would be welcomed by the Academy.

In doing this, we believe that social science research can help. It can help scientists understand how to engage better, how to understand public concerns and reactions, and even help improve the uptake and use of science in policy making itself, an issue the Academy of Social Science has been particularly concerned to support. Simply put – the art of science communication is a social science. Most importantly, it is a vital component to building a stronger bridge between science and society. Toward that end, we would be pleased to assist the Committee, if they would like to explore the social science aspects of science communication in more detail.

April 2016