Towards A Democratic Science
An e-conference for the
British Council
Volume 2
River Path Associates
November 2000
1
1
Table of Contents
Volume 2
Introduction5
Delegates’ Contributions
Week 1
Perception of Science, Tim Radford9
Week 2
Risk and Uncertainty, Nigel Poole49
Week 3
The Need for Regulation, Suzanne McCarthy67
Week 4
Ethical Responsibility, Frank Burnet85
Week 5
Public Consultation, Brian Wynne134
Week 6
Consumer Protection, Richard Ayre166
Concluding Comments186
About River Path Associates197
1
Introduction
This volume contains the full set of on-topic contributions, which were provoked by the six presentations given. The contributions are grouped under each week’s topic of discussion and are further linked by threads of conversation. The total amount of contributions by topic were as follows:
Perceptions of science: 48
Risk and uncertainty: 21
The need for regulation: 19
Ethical responsibility: 47
Public consultation: 35
Consumer protection: 23
The volume ends with six sets of concluding remarks from delegates in the e-conference, which were given in response to a request from the moderator to sum up the most important points arising from the overall debate.
Several reports of the live events were fed into the on-line conference, along with supporting papers from some of the co-speakers, all of which can be found in Volume 1.
1
1
Delegates’ Contributions
1
1
Week 1
Perception of Science
Tim Radford
1
Friday 15th September
Why are academic scientists such poor communicators?
Alan McHughen DPhil CBiol MIBiol
Professor and Senior Research Scientist
University of Saskatchewan, Canada
Tim Radford raises an excellent point in his essay ‘Perceptions of Science’. The cultural difference in communication style between scientists and non-scientists is often palpable. For example, during the recent 6th International Symposium on the Biosafety of genetically modified organisms, a public session provided an opportunity for non-scientists, curious about genetic technologies, to communicate with scientists. As an organizer, I felt like a chaperone for a group of adolescents at their first dance. The atmosphere was simultaneously tense, tentative and yet exciting. At first, the boys and girls, scientists and public, herded with like; gradually, the first brave souls ventured out to make an initial contact with the 'others'. Over the course of the session, more barriers came down and more communication opened. When it comes to communication, we're almost like different species.
Why are scientists such poor communicators with the public when they pride themselves on their communication skills with one another? Below is a short excerpt from my recently published A Consumer's Guide to Genetically Modified Food: From Green Genes To Red Herrings (Oxford University Press, 2000).
Why are academic scientists such poor communicators?
A problem with academic scientists is that, although knowledgeable, they are notoriously poor communicators. They use too much detail, they are too precise, and use too much technical jargon for public consumption.
This is no simple coincidence or freak occurrence. Scientists, by and large, are poor communicators with a general audience. Any students of science who might have natural (or especially unnatural) communication skills have those skills actively beaten out of them during the training period. 'Never say anything unless you support it using data derived from well designed and well executed experiments. Otherwise it is mere speculation.' (To be accused of speculation is a particularly nasty insult in the scientific community.) 'Write only in the third person, passive voice to avoid any personal attachment, which would adversely impact the impersonal objectivity of the work.' Scientists are taught to be precise and accurate, and the distinction between the two. 'You must support any and all assertions with sound experimental evidence and provide sufficient technical detail to enable the reader to repeat your experiments and obtain essentially the same results’.
These features of scientific communication are anathema to social communication, which, in contrast to the objective monologue of scientific presentations, thrives on a dialogue between participants, featuring subjectivity, ebb and flow of ideas and opinions, accessible vocabulary (even if imprecise or ambiguous), and mutual respect and deference. If we scientists are to enjoy effective communication with non-scientists, we need to develop both kinds of skills and use them as appropriate.
Friday 15th September
The role of obtuseness in science
Saliem Fakir
Director, IUCN (World Conservation Union) South Africa
Pretoria, South Africa
I would like to pick up on one or two points raised by Tim. In general I am in agreement with his views regarding the obtuseness of scientific language, and its accessibility to the general public. There is, however, a place for obtuseness, and that is in the specialized journals, meeting places, and where scientist speak to each other. And we should not lose sight of a need for this. Certainly when this obtuseness is spewed out in front of a less knowledgeable public, it is either a sign of incompetence, or a deliberate attempt at exclusion. However, there is also a place where scientists need to speak to ordinary people, as a form of accountability and transparency, particularly if they work in the public sector. And more so if they are reliant on tax-payers for the basic infrastructure to undertake research in their cherished endeavours. We must note that perhaps that since the 1950s onwards, and here I think mainly of the biological and medicinal sciences, there has been a great deal of privatisation of science. Big business is perhaps spending more on science now than the public sector ever did. There is also a need to focus on increasing public accountability on the side of business, which is lacking at the moment. Let us also not forget that public sector scientists, who work in universities and other public institutions, do receive a great deal in grants from the private sector. This obliges them to do research that is not necessarily of public interest, and due to the nature of private sector operations they have to sign non-disclosure contracts for reasons of competition, ethics, or control over intellectual property. This makes it all the more difficult for them to speak to the public, even though the desire may be there.
Tim does raise issues about meaning conveyed by language, and language is the only instrument by which we convey concepts. In the public domain it is a question of a conversion from the convoluted mathematical languages that describe the whole of the universe in a single formula to translation of these mathematical concepts into ordinary concepts. We should not expect all scientist to have these skills. And, perhaps as we have seen on many occasions, it requires scientists to acquire the skills of a journalist or novelist to use words creatively so that the lay public can visualise the world that a scientist is dealing with. In addition, speaking to the public is not often an objective exercise, particularly if certain interests and agendas need to be protected. This is clearly seen when we dealing with issues of risk or environmental impact. Then scientists become politicians, and their science, and the language they use, is informed by their ideological or patriotic leanings. I leave with these few words for now.
Saliem
Friday 22nd September
The role of obtuseness in science
Edward S. Lowry
Software Engineer
Bedford, Massachussetts, USA
Nominally retired after 33 years at IBM and DEC
The "almost wilfully obtuse" language deplored by Tim Radford has been the norm in software – with adverse consequences for technical education and a wide range of technical communication.
The following facts can be demonstrated with the help of material on the website at
1. The main problem with software has always been its complexity, and by that measure almost all software development technology available today is inferior to what was designed at IBM over 25 years ago.
2. The best available analysis of the fine structure of information supports the view that almost all currently used software development technology is unreasonable, in much the same way that square wheels are unreasonable.
3. Educators massively teach people how to arrange pieces of information, but are almost totally unaware of what is a reasonable structure for pieces of information.
There is a test in ‘Misdirections in Information Technology’ on the website for the first, along with a brief description of wilful efforts to impede simplification. Corporate technology profits and elite status have come from providing complexity, not simplicity. Checking the second could be a matter of looking for an analysis of information on fine structure comparable to that provided by ‘Toward Perfect Information Microstructures’ on the website. My inquiries (including financial incentives) show that there is probably nothing else that is comparable. The third is almost obvious, and more so in the light of the first two.
When doing straightforward engineering that presses the leading edge of simplification, the problem of simplifying the representation of software turns into the same problem as simplifying the representation of any kind of technical subject matter. As needless complexity is thoroughly squeezed out, there is a kind of phase change (analogous to freezing) which imposes uniformity on the data objects that are used to represent the subject matter. One result of optimizing data object structure shows how to fix a fundamental (but generally unnoticed) problem with technical education. There is a pervasive failure to express precise information precisely enough! Because of inadequacies in traditional mathematical notations, it has been impractical to fully express technical subject matter using precise mathematical expressions. Other information that could have been expressed precisely has been diffused into natural language text, diagrams, metaphors, examples and other informal expression. The student has had an unavoidable burden of distilling out the precise information and integrating it. Better understanding of the basic structure of information shows that much of that burden can be avoided in future. See ‘Formal Language as a Medium for Technical Education’ on the website.
The present situation, where software developers and teachers do not understand the fine structure of information, is comparable to a world where architects and bricklayers have never seen a reasonably shaped brick.
Saturday 16th September
Just not getting it
Victoria Collis
Deputy Managing Director
Larkspur Communications
London, UK
“Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah... and that's gravity," said my father (research chemist aged 32).
"What did you say it was called?" I asked (child, aged 5).
"Gravity," said my father.
"That's a stupid name," I said.
And my father realised at that moment that I would probably never be a scientist. But he didn't try to explain gravity in another way. He didn't even get an apple out of the fruit bowl and pretend he was Isaac Newton. And 25 years on I still don't really get it – and what's worse is that I don't care that I don't get it.
"Why doesn't the public just understand there's a need for ongoing research into particle physics?" was something I heard at a conference on communicating science a couple of years ago. It sounded like the start of a joke. Unfortunately he was deadly serious.
Monday 18th September
Understanding through ends, not process?
Jenifer North
Senior Communicator, CSIRO
Australia, Canberra
Tim has hit on the major stumbling block in the communication of science to the public – that of language. The problem is often exacerbated by the need of some scientists to cloak themselves in long words – "if the public can understand my work then it can't be all that clever".
But I think there is at least a second problem, that of relevance.
You can explain the results of a scientific project with engaging and startling clarity to the public but they will still not appreciate it or understand it as well unless you explain what impact this new knowledge is going to have on the world or, better still, their own lives.
Victoria Collis may never understand gravity but if her father had explained what it did – that when she fell off a wall or her bicycle she might hurt herself – she might have remembered it for its effects.
To many of our scientists it is the journey that is more important. They are excited and proud of the experiments they chose, the methodology they used to reach the results, the techniques they adapted to overcome hurdles. For some the result is almost an anticlimax!
And there's nothing wrong with that. Science and its processes can be fascinating. A mathematical equation can be 'elegant', a thing of beauty. A new hypothesis can be exciting to you and your peers. If it was not all these things, most of us probably wouldn't still be doing science.
But the old idea that science that has relevance is somehow of less value than blue-sky research must surely be now on its way to well deserved extinction.
For the public the process is irrelevant and the result is only the first step. It is the subsequent impact of that result on them that is the key part of the story. Understanding that, they can become enthusiastic supporters of scientific endeavours and scientists.
Understanding through ends, not process?
Victoria Collis
Deputy Managing Director
Larkspur Communications, London, UK
Jenifer North is absolutely right about the twin totems of language and relevance in effective communication (whether this has anything to do with science or not).
When communications specialists work with 'technology' clients, our main aim is generally to get a mainstream audience interested enough in something new that they actually go out and buy it. If we look at the way this has been done with mobile telephony, for example, it is clear that the moment we started to sell the benefits of using a phone on the move rather than trying to explain how technology works was the moment the public got really interested.
The range of tactics and language used by organisations to 'sell' their products and services can and should be used by the science community to 'sell' their ideas. This is not dumbing down – it's common sense.
And if it's any consolation, engineers also get very disheartened when you tell them that the blow by blow account of how they built the highest capacity mobile network in the Western hemisphere is never going to make front page news.
Monday 18th September
The politics of science
Louis van Niekerk
Associate Professor, Faculty of Education, University of South Africa
Associate Editor, South African Journal for Higher Education
Yes, scientists do like to obscure (obfuscate) meanings by using scientific language. But then, they are also involved in a discourse of power. They need to publish in so-called scientific journals and the more abstract the language, the greater are their chances of being published. Science is also a myth in the sense that it is supposed to provide a grand narrative by which we can understand our world. Science will provide answers and solutions. In order to gain credibility one has to use complex and abstract language to impress upon the reader one's intellectual superiority and claim to fame. If knowledge is power then science is the politics. Science by its very nature is political and that is nothing new.
The politics of science
Paul Fawcett
Communications Consultant
London, UK
Paul has spent the past 6 years promoting the work of UK organisations which fund medical research.
Louis van Niekerk raises what I believe to be a key issue in this debate – the power plays involved in being a scientist and how they can interfere with communicating science to a wider audience.
On many occasions I have laboured over a press release to draw out a story from a research paper in the hope of making news – an often slighted thing in discourse around science communication, but absolutely vital for keeping science on the agenda and getting more people interested and involved. All too often, the final product has been what I consider to be a flawed press release – the story is still there, but not as simply or elegantly explained as possible and desirable. Hey – it's not a perfect world, and at the end of the road the result – the story as it appears – will be much the same as the original take. But it just means less chance of the story being picked up and handing over more of the translation work back to journalists (and ironically less choice and 'control' over the language used for the scientists).
The main reason for this? Not because the work couldn't be explained simply. Not because the scientists concerned disagreed with the simple explanation put to them. But because somebody, somewhere, got the jitters about what their peers and 'betters' would think. Of course there have been exceptions – but all too often the overwhelming power of peer pressure gets in the way. There are very real concerns (which can only be addressed collectively), particularly among more junior scientists, that talking about their work in simple, accessible ways will seriously undermine their credibility. And in a competitive and frequently unrewarded field such as this, I can't criticise them for being worried.
Surely the ability to talk about complex science in simple ways is in itself a great skill, and one that ought to be viewed as totally complementary to all the other skills that go with being a good scientist. But all too often it seems that talking to the public about your work in ways that people understand and care about just gives other scientists another focus for criticism. Don't get me wrong – debate and argument are vital parts of the scientific process – but let's keep it to its proper place please gentlemen (a word I choose intentionally and to make another important point – would we be having this discussion if women were better represented in science? I suspect not to the same extent at all – but that's another debate...).