Written evidence submitted by the University of Cambridge (COM0103)

Submitted by:

Dane Comerford, Head of Public Engagement, University of Cambridge[1]

The mission of the University of Cambridge is to contribute to society through the pursuit of education, learning, and research at the highest international levels of excellence.

With more than 18,000 students from all walks of life and all corners of the world, nearly 9,000 staff, 31 Colleges and 150 Departments, Faculties, Schools and other institutions. At the heart of this confederation of Departments, Schools, Faculties and Colleges is a central administration team which is relatively small because the Colleges are self-governing and teaching staff carry out much of the daily administration at Cambridge.

The Public Engagement team at the University of Cambridge is a central service responsible organising the University's large-scale public engagement events, as well as offering practical support, advice and training to University staff and students. The team maintains a network of community contacts to nurture charitable, educational and voluntary partnerships between the University and its communities.

Executive Summary

‘Science’, in keeping with the Nurse review,[2] covers knowledge-based endeavour. The processes of discovery and application within a connected and informed democratic society cannot operate in isolation: the best science is creative, experimental and translates the world for the benefit of humanity. Along the way, it must be challenged and nurtured by allowing it to take risks, and to be open to scrutiny so as to avoid stagnation. If not, someone else, elsewhere in the world, will do it better. We should therefore be aiming for a society in which everyone, including parents, teachers, journalists and scientists, feels equipped to question and to engage with the scientific process.

Research, and its exploitation, deliver myriad societal outcomes, from significant contributions to the economy,[3] or life-changing healthcare, to a better understanding of ourselves or development of a nation worth defending.[4] Science is getting better at involving new voices with research indicated by seeing upswings in public support for science,[5] but what about scientists’ appreciation of engagement with society and individual people? What communications mechanisms need consideration? Does engagement always need to be mediated by a gatekeeper? At what point in the research cycle could, should and do researchers consider the public or external communities of interest as a valuable research partner? We shall address each of these questions in this submission.

The committee might wish to:

1. Encourage a diversity of voices in science discussions, and for those voices to be informed, open to challenge and accountable.

2. Recognise the changing needs of society when planning and resourcing communications and educational activities and what impacts investments might have.

3. Ensure communications and education professionals are supported financially and intellectually 

1. The trends in attitudes to science, and public engagement with science

Summary

a)      Contemporary emphases in the research environment include international competition, multidisciplinary research and greater relevance to society.

b)      Democracy enriches and safeguards scientific progress, keeping the UK competitive.

c)                    There have been increases in both support for and interest towards public engagement with research.

d)      There are more and better examples of where research is connected to societal needs and these efforts are being recognised.

Evidence

1.                                        There is much to be proud of, but society must not be complacent. Twenty years on from the seminal Bodmer report,[6] science has experienced highs and lows in the news, the #hashtag, the establishment of the National Coordinating Centre for Public Engagement (NCCPE)[7] and the move from RAE to REF. Research can expect to find itself questioned increasingly, and earlier on. This may feel uncomfortable at times, but the opportunity for more honest, open and continuous conversation is surely preferable to crisis management.

2.                                        Grand challenges affect everyone, the biggest of these are global in nature[8] and UK scientists need to be able to communicate multidisciplinary and cross-cutting research ideas locally and worldwide. The enormous potential of science comes with an obligation to avoid unintended consequences. Otherwise, apparently benign pursuits such as affordable genome sequencing or developments in artificial intelligence may generate unwelcome effects. Science can play its part in mitigating this threat by laying itself open to the checks and balances of vocal public debate.

3.                                        The sustained efforts of the Public Attitudes to Science surveys,[9] the NCCPE[10] and the consortium of UK research funders[11] to support and understand public engagement with research is to be commended, resulting in the UK being considered a world leader in this field. Despite positive trends and resilient public support for science, much is still to be done to maximise the beneficial impacts of dialogue at all stages of research. Some persistent barriers to wider academic participation in public engagement are psychological or social, for instance that engagement is difficult or distracting from research.

4.                                        Attitudes from the UK academic community towards public engagement with science has become more positive over the past ten years, broadened to account for the arts, humanities and social sciences (AHSS) community. Many researchers consider public engagement important relative to other aspects of their roles: 37% (STEM, 2105) from 28%, (STEM, 2006) and 52% (AHSS, 2015).[12] In terms of selecting an audience with whom to engage, policy-makers, general public and journalists were placed as the top three by researchers and public engagement support professionals (enablers). Other significant groups were young people in school, non-journalism media, civil society organisations (charities and NGOs) and industry. Interaction with all of these audiences is supported by at least one enabling team within the University. Including those distributed amongst academic departments, there are around one hundred (full-time equivalent) staff within:

1. Centre for Science and Policy (CSaP), www.csap.cam.ac.uk
2. Public Engagement, www.cam.ac.uk/public-engagement
3. Research Communications, www.communications.cam.ac.uk
4. Personal and Professional Development, www.ppd.admin.cam.ac.uk
5. Widening Participation and Cambridge Admissions Office, www.cao.cam.ac.uk
6. Research Strategy Office, www.research-strategy.admin.cam.ac.uk
7. Cambridge Enterprise, www.enterprise.cam.ac.uk

5.                                        A broad range of audiences is covered by programmes managed from the University's Public Engagement team, which alongside its public-facing activities (see section 2) supports institutional culture change as described by NCCPE and RCUK.[13] Partly funded by competitive grants, the team works with the various offices and academic Schools at the University to better understand and support motivations, processes and outcomes of public engagement across the STEM-AHSS landscape.[14] These operate internally and in UK, European, transatlantic contexts to identify barriers to engagement that can be removed, such as competing time pressures, perceived individual reputational risk, fear of failure or simply not knowing where to start.

6.                                        Junior researchers often state that public engagement does not carry recognition, whereas assessment of public engagement falls under the University’s "General Contribution"[15] for professorial promotion. This and other misconceptions are eroded through year-round training, support of individual projects, by celebrating good practice and developing advocacy from senior researchers, eg.: "From my time on the Senior Academic Promotions Committee I see that every aspect of a candidate’s CV must be strong for success. Public Engagement and Outreach activity is an important and valued contribution which can be decisive in a promotions case."[16]

7.                                        National milestones in engagement include the recent regulatory approval for gene editing, where proactive debate in public spaces began even before Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) approval was sought.[17] Alongside the use of high-profile successes as exemplars, the Public Engagement team offers small grants to support novel forms of engagement and highlights when researchers incorporate societal factors into their work, [18] for example:

1. Neuroscience researchers using hip-hop as a vehicle for exploring mental illness with new audiences, using social media to detect mental illness factors, and develop and use new healthcare interventions to enhance personalised patient care.[19]

2. An EPSRC project, Designing Our Tomorrow, was a set of educational lesson plans for Key Stage 3, designed in partnership between the Department of Engineering and the Faculty of Education. Following roll-out of the project in nine schools, extensive evaluation revealed three quarters of students had greater appreciation of “user needs” in the design process and had first-hand experience of autonomy within a research context.[20]

Recommended Government actions

e)      Institutional support for researchers: nurture a culture in which scientists who do engage beyond the laboratory feel secure, where Institute and University leaders reassure their senior and junior scientists that they will not face lack of promotion or other negative effects if they engage with new audiences. This could be by formal and celebratory recognition of efforts.

f)       Strengthen local enablers: Many universities have small or marginalised public engagement infrastructure. Local advocacy of public engagement and research communications should be recognised, resourced and supported. This includes suitable opportunity infrastructure through dedicated and long-term funding.

g)             Prioritise skills development: researchers and enablers should have access to and be encouraged to share expert advice. There could be a balance of optional and expected training (general or specific to career stage or subject) for scientists and enablers. There should be more opportunities to experience public engagement first hand.

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

Summary

a)      Live events are opportunities for allowing new audiences to experience an authentic picture of contemporary science alongside practicing researchers.

b)      Coordinating live science events throughout the year provide a relevant and nationally significant communications platform.

c)      Entrepreneurial science communication: live events can provide managed-risk environments for testing ideas that can challenge research and also developing cultural products that can become commercially viable.

Evidence

1.           Audiences have preferences for a range of communications methods, and strengths, with opportunity costs, and benefits attributed to each, eg.: formal curricula, after-school activities, science and nature centres, programmes of events, and audio-visual, print and digital media. With increased competition for resources and attention, and with complex messages to convey (from advances in healthcare, ‘how science is done' to illustrating possible technical careers), traditional outlets and platforms should evolve or science risks missing out on deeper engagement.

2.           Often overlooked as a key communications tool, live events (with an explicit science focus) are proliferating because they have flexible resource needs and can leap socio-cultural obstacles by innovative presentation of topics. Festivals represent the second largest 'once' experience for researchers[21] and when designed to reach new audiences, live public science events successfully involve people who do not self-identify as science enthusiasts or participate in other forms of informal learning.[22] Additionally, they are powerful tools for building long-term relationships with communities: where the medium is the message, showing up in person when and where it works best for an audience can go a long way to building trust.

1. Sabine Jaccaud, AstraZeneca : "Opportunities like the Cambridge Science Festival have provided a great way for AstraZeneca and MedImmune scientists and other professionals to integrate with the Cambridge research culture. It has helped us establish a sense of place and co-location with neighbouring organizations, by meeting local residents, talking to thousands of visitors about our work and forming new relationships with dozens of institutions. Most importantly, the camaraderie across organizations involved in hosting activities for the public at the Cambridge Science Festival facilitates conversations and shared experiences outside our respective workplaces."

3.           Face-to-face (unmediated) researcher-public conversations are a planned opportunity for authentic conversations to go anywhere, from why or how research is done, how an audience member’s lived experience might provoke new questions for the researcher, or what downstream implications may result; by default, they an opportunity to try out new messages, frame questions or listen to public opinion.[23]

4.           The Cambridge Science Festival is the largest annual University-led science festival in the UK, in 2016 facilitating 75,000 face-to face interactions with 1,000 researchers across 340 events over a fortnight (Cambridge also has Festival of Ideas, AHSS-led, 23,000 visits.) For both the Cambridge Science Festival and Cambridge Festival of Ideas, approximately half of the audience is new each year, and one quarter are considered regular attendees. It is often difficult to track the long-term impacts of these informal interactions, but occasionally visitors offer comments that indicate real change in people’s life choices:

2. Visitor to Cambridge Science Festival: “The Science Festival is an excellent way of getting children to understand that Science is cool, fascinating, relevant to their everyday lives and important. I used to bring my daughters and their friends when they were young; one of my daughters is now studying for a PhD in Chemistry at Cambridge. She is the first from either side of the family to get to Oxbridge.  Now I bring my cousin's and friends' children. Keep up the good work!”

3. Visitor to Cambridge Science Festival: “We keep coming back every year, it is an amazing Festival and we have learned a lot, both my teenage daughter and I. My daughter is passionate about science and wants to pursue a career in this direction.  She finds attending the Festival helps her narrow down her choices of subjects to study further. She found chatting with the students and staff especially useful. A HUGE thank you for organising this Festival.”

5.           Live events and science festivals were specifically described as niche activity by the 2014 Public Attitudes to Science survey,[24] with 3% of the UK population attending approximately 250 festival days nationwide. In contrast with festivals that work within whatever is available (eg. communities, dates and venues), there are many year-round opportunities to explore science or the natural environment in a space specifically designed for that purpose[25] and we applaud the recent £30 million investment[26] in capital infrastructure on behalf of the 60 UK science centres’ 20 million visits.[27] By way of comparison, the Cambridge Science Festival annually costs around £0.2m, from an equal mix of University and corporate fundraising; an equivalent 20 Cambridge‑sized festivals might cost £2m of core investment matched by £2m of local business support to reach ~1.5m people.

6.           The UK Science Festival Network (UKSFN), previously self-managed with no investment beyond goodwill, is now coordinated by the British Science Association with modest resource and new shared goals and evaluation standards. It represents 33 science festivals that in 2014/15 delivered 3,391 events across 266 festival days, drawing audiences from 9,987 distinct postcode districts across the UK and reaching 1 million people for authentic conversations, face-to-face with a researcher.[28]

7.           In addition to raising aspirations, the festival is a platform to highlight areas of research practice. We find that when placed in the context of ‘why’ research is done, public audiences commonly welcome discussion of ‘how’ science happens:

1. Visitor to Cambridge Science Festival: “I was extremely taken by the pragmatic solutions (there were two) to this issue of oesophageal investigations. Brilliant engineering, freeing medical professionals from both undertaking the endoscopy, and the decision on the observed result, so that both could be undertaken at a fraction of the cost of the endoscopy. Brilliant Engineering is being able to achieve for 1p what any fool can do for £1. Wonderful.”[29]

2. Visitor to Cambridge Science Festival: “I was particularly impressed by the statements from the speaker [Helen Burchmore, person affected by multiple sclerosis, patient expert at the NICE HTA Committee meetings] on the importance of many aspects of Campath-1H compared with other treatments, and the psychological impact of this.”[30]

8.           Examples of individual researchers responding to public audiences are equally broad ranging, and when a researcher is in the habit of speaking and listening to new audiences, they become a powerfully authentic voice in the public realm:

1. Sarah Dillion, Lecturer, Faculty of English, University of Cambridge: “My experience of public engagement has had a transformative impact on what I understand an academic to be, on how I practise my research… my public engagement activities take place throughout the research cycle and in relation to all my projects. How my research has benefit and interest to the public, and what kinds of public engagement are appropriate, are both now key factors in my research project planning.”

2. Susan Watts (after chairing a festival discussion): “To my surprise, a leading plant scientist on the panel said she would be prepared to see cross-species manipulation of food crops put on hold if the public was overwhelmingly uncomfortable with it. Ottoline Leyser, Director of the University of Cambridge’s Sainsbury Laboratory, said she believed valuable GM crop development could still be done even if scientists were initially restricted to species that can swap their genes naturally, outside of the laboratory. An example of this might be adding a trait from one variety of rice to another.”[31]

9.                                         Public events that were born in science festivals are now being accepted into mainstream culture and place-making strategies, two examples are:

1. Festival of The Spoken Nerd[32] developed its early science comedy theatre style between 2010 and 2012 within the Cambridge Science Festival. It has since grown into a nationally recognised science-culture brand, with a comedy series recently commission by BBC Radio 4 and a critically acclaimed DVD and download release. It runs a touring programme, which in 2014/15 played to over 16,000 people in 48 venues across the UK, with ticket sales in the region of £150,000. Festival of the Spoken Nerd comprises Steve Mould, Helen Arney and Matt Parker who between them have amassed 35 million views on YouTube for their experiments, songs and stand-up.

Helen Arney: “The change in attitude towards science as a part of mainstream culture has been phenomenal over the past few years. Cambridge Science Festival gave us our earliest opportunity to try out a new ideas that have developed into a commercial success. We continue to return to science festivals, seeing them as an experimental place for new and edgy ideas that we tour as part of Festival of the Spoken Nerd which is going strong after five years.” 

2. Supporting the agenda of Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEPs) and Enterprise Zones, cultural leaders in Cambridge[33] are identifying opportunities to animate new places with digital technology events and installations that were pioneered within the Cambridge Festivals. An example is an ambitious programme of work currently being developed for deploying technology-arts activities and products in new places of enterprise. This £900k project, currently seeking funding from Arts Council England and the GCGP LEP, will be run by Collusion[34] in partnership with the University of Cambridge, Anglia Ruskin University and local technology businesses such as ARM.[35] It aims to develop arts-tech collaborations in Cambridge and the ‘hubs’ of Bury St Edmunds, Huntingdon, King’s Lynn, Peterborough, Wisbech, Northstowe and Stansted Airport, and the Science Festival will continue to be an important platform for the development and discussion of ideas and to share work in progress.

Rachel Drury: “Since we set up Collusion, the Cambridge Science Festival and Festival of Ideas have been really important platforms for us, supporting us to take risks and create interesting and engaging inter-disciplinary work with the collaboration and participation of highly engaged audiences. Our new programme will allow us to generate even greater social outcomes by extending Collusion's and the Festivals’ activity beyond the city, supporting enterprise and innovation across the arts and technology industries, increasing creative technology skills, and raising aspirations in areas of deprivation.”

Recommended Government actions

d)      Recognise an agile communications and learning ecosystem: festivals and year-round events can provide relevant and authentic opportunities for today’s consumer.

e)      Recognise a proactive approach: new ideas come from new voices, and for that to happen requires both a public that is interested and informed about science, and scientists who are equipped with the ethical and methodological apparatus (including institutional and external enablers) to lead public debate.

f)       Review the balance of investment: capital and revenue costs support daily access to designed places that can be refreshed every several years; soft infrastructural investment in UK science festivals could have a large transformative effect on attracting new and diverse audiences.

g)      Culture (arts, humanities, science, technology, medicine) as a place-maker or business opportunity: recognise that science and culture can support growth but that they need investment and the space to take risks.

3. Any 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.

Summary

a)      Independent authoritative voice: professional journalism performs dual roles of scrutiny and celebration.

b)      Authentic reporting: academic communications platforms can connect audiences to primary sources of information and encourage direct feedback into science.

c)      More communications platforms: new news aggregators or social media sites facilitate more and different reporting styles.

Evidence

1.           Mainstream and scientific media outlets provide a range of celebratory, instrumental and critical functions, acting as independent memories or shaping public opinion. Such reporters and editors are required if we are to hope for the same level of proper public scrutiny of science as we expect of other central facets of our society, such as politics or economics.

2.           According to Susan Watts, science editor of BBC Newsnight  for nearly 20 years, journalism is also about: “placing scientific work in its social context, attempting a look at why it might matter, and investigating the murkier underbelly of science…Our media is still dominated by people who are incredibly talented but who are, all too often, educated in the humanities…I’m as awestruck as anyone by the beauty of the aurora, but I also want to know more about issues such as what’s being called the ‘replication crisis’ in science.”[36] Two years later, journalist Alok Jha, in his BBC Radio 4 programme, observed that science research is a huge and global enterprise that cannot rely on trust alone; transparency and openness need to counter incentives (eg. awards and competitive grants) coming from within the system of research that might reward bad behaviour. [37]

3.           Specialist reporters reviewing original research and following up on leads is common, with a mid-market tabloid journalist acknowledging: “I would say I almost always get hold of the original paper. The exceptions would be the odd occasion when I'm really pushed for time and the press release can be trusted.”[38] In contrast, with low numbers of scientific reporters in local media outlets,[39] some newspapers publish press releases without review or edit.

4.           Universities are taking on the dual role of primary and public sources of information themselves or using outlets such as The Conversation.[40] In a similar way that festivals and other live events offer the opportunity for face-to-face authentic interaction between scientists and the public, features and news feeds from a university brand situate front-line reporting closer to the origin of research. University of Cambridge multimedia channels include:

1. Research Horizons,[41] a 36-44pp long-form magazine published three times a year in print and online under a Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-SA 3.0) Licence;[42]

2. Video material[43] distributed by social media, with 38.9m collective views;[44] and

3. Naked Scientists,[45] an internet science radio show based at the University of Cambridge Institute of Continuing Education, available as a podcast and via BBC radio Cambridgeshire, BBC Radio 5 Live, ABC Radio National (Australia).

5.           Established scientists are taking public engagement seriously for themselves, a refreshing shift from the insulation of the past, in which the public may have been dismissed and then that choice regretted. A combined multimedia (and non-mediated) communications portfolio may be one way to establish a culture of honest open reporting of research. Returning to the Cambridge Festivals[46] and their 98,000 face-to-face encounters with around 1,500 current research staff and students, live events present a point in time to package together a range of written, audio and video features[47] alongside a traditional press and social media strategy.[48] As researchers and digital audiences become more comfortable and familiar with scientific social media conversations, more voices may be heard, allowing an informed public to perform similar accountability roles as professional journalists.

Recommended Government actions

d)      professional media organisations should have the resources to challenge authority (research funders, governments and the science “establishment”.)

e)      Nurture a science communication culture in which feel researchers able (equipped and rewarded) to speak honestly about their work, hopes and fears

f)       Sense of ownership of debate in a social media age: provide tools and access opportunities for parents, teachers and young people, together with journalists and the public at large, to feel equipped to question and engage with the scientific process.

4. 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.

Summary

a)      The bedrock: high quality science and maths education, delivered through the mainstream classroom curriculum is fundamental for building a society where the public is better-informed about science

b)      High quality compulsory science teaching is done by teachers who are comfortable with science, or with welcoming external science teaching or enrichment into their classrooms.

c)      An ecosystem of informal science learning for all supports young and older people to explore science and how it is done on their own terms.

Evidence

1.           The crucial role of teachers can be supported and enhanced by scientists coming into schools (both primary and secondary), to act as enthusiastic role models, and to make connections between the classroom and contemporary research practice.

2.           There is a great willingness from scientists to participate in educational programmes within schools, with two thirds of researchers saying it is important to work with young people in school (71% STEM, 61% AHSS, 67% all researchers) and with school teachers (62% STEM and AHSS).[49] In addition to individual researchers’ efforts, the University of Cambridge leads on efforts to enrich and support school science and mathematics education at local, national and international level. Programmes covering a life course include:

1. The Millennium Mathematics Project (MMP)[50] is an educational outreach initiative, established in 1999 as a collaboration between the Faculties of Mathematics and Education. It produces mathematics education (low-threshold/high-ceiling) resources aimed at ages 3 to 18 (and teachers) that encourage core thinking, reasoning and problem-solving skills. In 2015 the website attracted more than 37 million page views from over 5 million users worldwide, with 56% of usage being within the UK. Additionally, 5,000 UK and international teachers receive face-to-face professional development, who later observe increased levels of pupil engagement and improved confidence in approaching mathematical problem-solving after implementing ideas on the use of MMP[51] resources in the classroom. The free online mathematics magazine, Plus, provides in-depth articles based on interviews with mathematical researchers across a huge range of fields, reaches an audience of around 1.5 million users a year. The Millennium Mathematics Project also co-ordinates the STIMULUS programme, a long-running initiative for volunteer University of Cambridge students (190 placements in 2015/16) to support maths, science and computing classes and after-school clubs: 10 of the student volunteers from the current 2015/16 cohort have applied for PGCE programmes, TeachFirst or similar schemes next year.[52]

2. University museums and their collections[53] complement the University’s wider engagement and communication activities; they are public spaces where people are actively welcomed throughout the year. Museum staff are skilled and experienced in overcoming the barriers that prevent people from engaging with science. Through collections, museums put science in context outside the lab, link abstract ideas with objects and technology and demonstrate that science is a community endeavour rather than something carried out by lone individuals. During 2015/16, more than 400,000 public visitors engaged with the scientific collections and museums of the University of Cambridge; more than 12,000 of these were school-aged students involved in STEM subjects and widening participation initiatives. The role of museums and their collections should be recognised as not just valuable research resources, but important centres of science outreach and communication, possibly alongside science centres. It should be noted that currently the major non-national funder of museum provision in England is Arts Council England, which does not have a specific science remit.

3. The Institute of Continuing Education[54] organises a diverse array of subjects and courses for personal and professional development, ranging from short, non-credit and online courses to residential and award-bearing programmes to Master level, with an enrolment of over 6,000 students.

4. Cambridge Society for the Application of Research (CSAR)[55] runs a fortnightly series of public talks, debates and industry tours for adults. These activities represent year-round opportunities for public audiences with CSAR providing Continuing Professional Development certificates for audience members.

3.           The cross over between formal and informal learning is evident, and although most attention is directed towards young people specifically,[56] an ecosystem of advocates and relevant role models throughout the life course are crucial in supporting STEM and non-STEM career choices of young people. Recognising the value of parent-child relationships, particularly mothers, in shaping attitudes towards STEM subjects, the ASPIRES project found that the most important sources of influence of (Year 8) children’s aspirations are family members or close family friends who do this job (47%).[57] The ASPIRES project recommended programmes aimed at helping students and families to understand the transferable value of science qualifications, inspiring more young people to see science as possible and personally relevant for their own futures. The Cambridge Science Festival is one route for family-group science engagement, with 53% of attendees coming as a family with the leader of the group likely to be female.[58]

Recommended Government actions

d)      Support and encourage confident science and mathematics teachers and to encourage more science and mathematics graduates to enter the teaching profession.

e)      Allow successful activities to flourish by reviewing and possibly relaxing restrictions or eligibility limits to funding mechanisms.

f)       Recognise the value of the science learning ecosystem for encouraging young people to consider STEM careers.

5. The extent to which public dialogue and consultation is being effectively used by Government in science and technology areas of policy-making.

Summary

a)      Public engagement with research and policy can effectively connect evidence and public opinion.

b)      Examples of consultation illustrate how other scientists might approach managing a stakeholder dialogue session and why it may be useful.

Evidence

1. University of Cambridge researchers and science communication professionals welcome the clarification of rules for presenting evidence and questions to Parliament.[59] It is brave decisions for engagement that uphold the principles of democracy, and foster real and open debate from a range of sectors of society.

2. Examples of consultation in the life sciences, include research on gene editing in embryos and the procedure of mitochondrial donation[60], may have expedited authorisation by HFEA with clear, and demonstrable, public support. Outside the life sciences, the University of Cambridge has experienced the value of involvement of its researchers in informing policy. An example is Dr Möller’s research[61] on coastal erosion, which supported by her public engagement activity, resulted in a coherent approach when influencing decision-making practice. By better understanding the end-users and practitioners who will be implementing her proposals on coastal management, she has helped design more effective water defence interventions through research-led and consultative policy implementation.

3. In a broader University of Cambridge context, the Centre for Science and Policy (CSaP) provides a flexible and efficient route for policy-makers to have access to insights from university research and staff. Its popular and effective Policy Fellow programme has facilitated over 4,000 face-to-face conversations between academics and policy-makers (on their terms), and is connecting four additional universities with this work through the CSaP Affiliate Network[62].

4. One of the regular findings of the Public Attitudes to Science is the perceived lack of government public consultation,[63] and we commend the work of Sciencewise and the resources of the Expert Resource Centre for generating data and insights on public opinion. As the research community takes more adventurous steps to conduct mini dialogues on areas of their work, some of this national-level background work has both saved time and costs for local enablers, and illustrated to researchers how such activities might progress.[64] The proliferation of smaller scale dialogues, sensitive to local needs, may be an additional route to increase the perception by the public that they are being listened to by researchers and by policymakers.[65]

Recommended Government actions

c)      Continue to support dialogue initiatives

d)      Create and maintain pathways for stakeholders (researchers, publics) to feed into policymaking

6. 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

Summary

a)      There is much to be proud of, but we must not be complacent: continue to support public engagement with research initiatives.

Evidence

1. Despite the many very excellent examples of scientists reaching out, some of which are described in earlier sections, there are too many missed opportunities to connect new audiences and research. This includes unambitious “Pathways to Impact” statements within research grants. In contrast with Wellcome Trust Provision and Wellcome Trust Open Access publishing funds, which is additional to a grant allocation, “Pathways to Impact” budgets, like Open Access journal fees, are not. This means that funds for PE need to come from within the RCUK research grant envelope at the point of application. For individual scientists, we can articulate the benefits of clear exposition of research and how this can forge relationships. We can persuade by dint of obligation the need to make clear to the public the nature and implications of research for which the public purse is paying. However when funding of these activities is perceived to be in competition with core research costs, an additional challenge is presented to be overcome.

Recommended Government actions

b)      Maintain and strengthen national programmes of work, such as Sciencewise and the National Coordinating Centre for Public Engagement.

c)      Resource must be hypothecated: the stated goals of REF and RCUK “Pathways to Impact” must be consistent, clear and tested to ensure that these are being implemented to greatest effect.

June 2016