SCIENCE COMMUNICATION IN THEORY AND PRACTICE

Science & Technology Education LibraryVOLUME 14

SERIES EDITOR

Ken Tobin, University 0/Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, USA

EDITORIAL BOARD

Dale Baker, Arizona State University, Tempe, USABeverley Bell, University of Waikato, Hamilton, New ZealandReinders Duit , University of Kiel, GermanyMariona Espinet, Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona, SpainBarry Fraser, Curtin University of Technology, Perth, AustraliaOlugbemiro Jegede, The Open University, Hong KongReuven Lazarowitz, Technion , Haifa , IsraelWolff-Michael Roth, University ofYictoria, CanadaTuan Hsiao-lin, National Changhua University 0/Education, TaiwanLilia Reyes Herrera, Universidad Aut6noma de Colombia, Bogota, Colombia

SCOPEThe book series Science & Technology Education Library provides a publication forumfor scholarship in science and technology education. It aims to publish innovative bookswhich are at the forefront of the field. Monographs as well as collections of papers willbe published.

The titles published in this series are listed at the end of this volume.

Science Communication in Theory and Practice

Edited by

SUSAN M. STOCKLMA YER

MICHAEL M. OORE

and

CHRIS BRYANT

Australian National University, Canberra, Australia

.... '1

SPRINGER-SCIENCE+BUSINESS MEDIA, B.V.

A C.I.P. Ctalogue record for this book is available from the Library of Congress.

ISBN 978-1-4020-0131-4 ISBN 978-94-010-0620-0 (eBook) DOI 10.1007/978-94-010-0620-0

Printed an acid-free paper

AII Rights Reserved © 200 1 Springer Science+ Business Media Dordrecht

Originally published by Kluwer Academic Publishers in 2001 Softcover reprint ofthe hardcover Ist edition 2001

No part of the material protected by this copyright notice may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical,

inc1uding photocopying, recording or by any information storage and retrieval system, without written permission from the copyright owner.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Foreword

Acknowledgement

Introduction and OverviewSusan M. Stocklmayer, Michael M. Gore & Chris Bryant

SECTION 1: TOWARDS A THEORETICAL BASIS FOR SCIENCECOMMUNICATION

vii

Vlll

ix

1. The Background to Effective Science Communication by the Public 3Susan M. Stocklmayer

2. Science Communication with the Public : A Cross Cultural Event 23Glenn Aikenhead

3. More than Story Telling-Reflecting on Popular Science 47Jon Turney

4. Topical Perspective and the Rhetorical Grounds of Practical Reason inArguments About Science 63Lawrence J Prelli

5. Postmodern Science : The Decline or Liberation of Science 83Richard Eckersley

SECTION 2: THE EXPERIMENTAL APPROACH TO SCIENCECOMMUNICATION

6. Conversations in a Landscape of Science and Magic : Thinking aboutScience Communication 97David Siess & Ruth Shrensky

7. Communicating Science Through Interactive Science Research Centres:A Research Perspective 107Leonie J. Rennie

8. Towards a Unified Model of Education and Entertainment in TechnologyCentres 123John K. Gilbert

vi

9. Reaching the Public - Communicating the VisionSusan M. Stocklmayer

SECTION 3: SCIENCE COMMUNICATION AND THE MEDIA

143

10. Science Journalism : the Inside Story 151Peter Spinks

11. Presenting a Radio Science Program: Engaging the Public Interest 169Deborah Cohen

12. Science Communication via Television and the World Wide Web 177Ian Allen

SECTION 4: SCIENCE COMMUNICATION IN PRACTICE: CASE HISTORIES

13. New Visions for Associations for the Advancement of Science : A CaseStudy 191Peter Briggs

14. The Edinburgh International Science Festival 203Simon Gage

15. The Questacon Story 219Michael M. Gore

16. The Anatomy of a Science Circus and the Development of a GraduateProgram in Science Communication 237Chris Bryant

17. Learning by Building (Destroying and Tinkering, Too): A PowerfulScience Communication Tool 257Vivian Altmann, Modesto Tamez and Dennis Bartels

EPILOGUE : REFLECTIONS OF AN EMINENT SCIENTIST

18. Learning Science Communication on the JobPeter Doherty

Notes on Contributors

271

279

FOREWORD

Hereafter you will find a first: a comprehensive textbook on the communication ofscience in theory and practice! Is there a need for such a textbook? Obviously, yes!

Whether you are a scientist , a science journalist, a science teacher, a sciencemuseum specialist, a scientific website designer, a science historian, a scienceentertainer, a member of a scientific society or club, a science tinkerer - there isalways a chance that you will be enthusiastic about the job of communicatingscience, but uncertain about whether you do it well. This book exposes you to thepractices of others by reviewing science communication case studies or by invitingyou to plunge into the underlying rationale of theoretical approaches to sciencecommunication. These are different opportunities for comparing your experiencewith the practices or reflections of others. The conversation can even be establishedand furthered with the authors of some of these case studies or of the theoriespresented in this book by using their website and possibly their email addresses.

This book, like a composite, gathers contributions from experts from most of theabove mentioned fields. A lot of practices are discussed and they are among thevery best practices according to common professional wisdom in the field. Thosepractices are also reflected upon in an attempt to be somewhat theoretical. Indeed,the study of how science is communicated is also a science, but it is a social scienceand as such, has developed theoretical grounds which are solid but differ in theirstatus from theories in natural sciences. Science communication researchers willfind in this book concepts and theories to further elaborate on in a field which ismoving fast.

Needless to say , the field is complex, requiring more research and moreresearchers of the highest talent in the future. Among some of questions examined,one can find those concerning the production of scientific knowledge in differentcontexts, the transposition of the produced knowledge into transferable orreconstructible knowledge, the appropriation mechanisms which depend on thediversity of practices, the balance between individual experiences andrepresentations, between knowing how and knowing about, the use of differentgenres of discourses and rhetoric, the relation between sciences and between scienceand other disciplines or domains like technology (the art of solving problemsthrough design), the balance between individual needs (curiosity, health, career) andsocial needs (as an active member of a manifold of social groups and a society atlarge) and many more. All of the above represent major questions, the clarificationof which has an impact on each of us individually and our place within science-richsocieties.

The stakes are high and the challenge of the editors has been well addressed. Ihave taken a lot of pleasure reading the texts, which offer stimulating inspiration forfurther practices and reflections. The practice and the future of both science and ofscience communication are deeply intertwined. This book brings clarity on thismatter so essential to evryone today. It is also a call for more responsibility to betaken by scientists in trying to communicate about what they do, what theyunderstand, what they still ignore, and most importantly, what gets them excited.

GOERY DELACOTEExecutive Director,

Exploratorium

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The editors wish to acknowledge the hard work and keen eye of Catherine Rayner, aGraduate Student at the National Centre for the Public Awareness of Science atANU, who assisted in the preparation of the typescript.

SUE STOCKLMAYER, MIKE GORE AND CHRIS BRYANT

INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW

It is widely accepted that the importance of the communication of science to thepublic can be summarised under five headings. They are, not necessarily in the orderof importance, economic, utilitarian, democratic, cultural and social.

The economic imperative, regrettably, is today the main driving force towards abetter scientifically educated public. No better illustration of this is the jointstatement of March 2000 that President Clinton and Prime Minister Blair saw fit toutter, that the human genome is the common property of humanity and not theintellectual property of a few entrepreneurial commercial companies. The conceptof intellectual property, however, has fuelled many of the arguments in favour ofpublic awareness of science. This is implicit in the Clinton statement that stressesthe attainment of national goals.

The utilitarian argument is closely allied to the economic one. It is the view thatthe public should be scientifically aware because of the way the community usesscience. It is often stated that science in everyday life is invisible, taken for granted.And so it is and-probably-so it should be. It is not necessary in everyday life toknow how a magnetron works to run a microwave oven, nor much about electricityto be able to switch the light on and off. It is, however, desirable for the public tokeep abreast of the general developments in science becoming aware of newapplications, such as the use of DNA fingerprinting in identifying criminals, andfeeling comfortable with them.

In a sense, the democratic argument is a subset of the utilitarian argument. Thegeneral public is often asked to make decisions about new technologies that couldhave far reaching effects, both on its own wellbeing and on the rest of the world.Trading in carbon futures in an attempt to halt global warming is an example.

Unfortunately, few politicians or financial experts have any scientific training atall. If the expertise is not present at the highest levels where does it reside? Theanswer is that it has to reside with the community that, through the exercise ofdemocratic rights, appoints the politicians. It is not just wishful thinking to imaginethat, eventually , political will, as expressed by scientifically aware politicians, willhave an influence on multinational corporations .

Next, there is the cultural argument. Science is one of the things people do and,like all of the things that people do, it can be done at the highest or the lowest level.As Stephen J. Gould has remarked, the best science is like high art, worthappreciating for its own sake and not necessarily because it brings an immediatebenefit in material terms to the beholder. The elegant simplicity of Nobel laureateNiko Tinbergen' s studies of digger wasps and herring gulls had no immediate 'use',

x INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW

but for the reader the sheer pleasure of comprehending something of the life of thesecommon animals transcends the need for 'usefulness' . Although a lesser scientistmight have achieved the same results , Tinbergen 's insight, the creativity of hishypotheses, the elegance of his experiments and the simplicity of his writingcombined to produce work that takes science to the highest levels of humanendeavour. Mathematicians experience the same frisson of pleasure whencontemplating an elegant solution to a problem even though a 'quick and dirty'answer might do the job.

Finally, there is the social argument. As science permeates all levels of humanactivity then an awareness of the basis of science and the issues surrounding it willserve to enhance social cohesion. Much of science has relevance for all cultures andbecomes a shared tradition. Unfortunately, it cannot be denied that, as Gregory andMiller (1998) point out

There is no doubt that many in the scientific community who want to further the publicunderstanding of science are really concerned with increasing the public 's appreciation of science , with aview to enhancing the status of themselves and their colleagues. (p9)

Scientists are very likely to think in terms of the way they perceive thatscientific communication might benefit their own work. A common feelingamongst scientists, as soon as they emerge from the self-delusion of believing thatpeople will not understand what they do, is

if only people knew how exciting my science is they'd give us more money

In spite of much evidence to the contrary, they rarely think

if people knew what we are really up to. they might stop us

Scientists are no more nor no less altruistic than non-scientists . Even men likeHumphrey Davy, Michael Faraday and Thomas Huxley, all of whom wereoutstanding science communicators, were driven by the twin imperatives of thescience itself and the need to make a living. Good communication was thereforeessential.

As far as the community is concerned, science is invisible until such time as ithas a need for it. It is the task of the science communicator to demonstrate to thecommunity that it has such a need. When the need is recognised the rate at whichnon-scientific members of the community are capable of assimilating scientificideas is often astonishing.

There have been many surveys that claim that the public would prefer to readabout science ahead of sport in the newspapers. They are often cited as a validationfor the science communicator and one that should convince editors to include muchmore science in their papers. The editors, who presumably know what sellsnewspapers, remain unconvinced , and so does Professor Doherty (see Epilogue).

Yet it is an inescapable fact that several surveys have come up with the sameconclusion. The reading public likes to read about science and places it high ontheir list of priorities . Editorial policy, however, is informed by circulation. It is

SUE STOCKLMAYER, MIKE GORE AND CHRIS BRYANT xi

clear that editors are comfortable with the view that, while the reading populationmight like to read about science it doesn't want to read about it too much.

In understanding the community 's attitudes to science , it is necessary todistinguish between 'knowledge' of science and 'affect' or mental dispositiontowards science. Herein lies the dichotomy between the public understanding ofscience (which rejoices in the revolting short form PUS; as someone remarked, onlyscientists would come up with an acronym like that) and public awareness ofscience.

It is good to be sceptical of studies that indicate that the public has a poor graspof science. Many of these studies contain the seeds of self-fulfilling prophecy . Forexample, Durant Evans & Thomas (1989) describe work in which general scientificknowledge questions are asked of a randomly selected sample of people . Thisnecessarily constructs an image of a public that is deficient in its understanding ofscience. Only if everyone answered all questions correctly could this deficit modelbe challenged. Other studies may have other flaws; if the public is asked what itwants to read about in newspapers, it may give 'science' as the socially desirableanswer, or confuse science with medical breakthroughs. If the community is askedwhether it is proud of the achievements of its scientists it might answer 'yes' withouthaving a clear idea of exactly why. We can al1 be proud of the Dohertys and theFloreys without necessarily understanding what they did to win the Nobel Prize .

Only when the public have a specific interest will they turn to the science pages.When they are personally engaged, they wil1 read voraciously and be capable ofmastering difficult material with ease. It is the task of the science communicator toincrease the 'need to know' and nurture it.

This seems so obvious that it is a surprise when scientists fail to grasp this verysimple idea. In the face of declining enrolments in science at secondary and tertiarylevels in the western world, and of the obvious disenchantment of young womenwith science, there is still great resistance amongst scientists to making their workaccessible .

Research Councils now include the concept of 'duty' in their instructions toapplicants. The Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council in Britain, forexample, states that

We believe that all those engaged in publicly funded research have a duty to explaintheir work to the general public.

This imperative generates both anger and anxiety among scientists whenconfronted with it. One of us (CB), in an earlier incarnation, recalls the intenseirritation he felt when he had to spend valuable research time on both grantapplications and communication with the public. These are feelings shared by manyscientists today. We frequently run short, 3-day workshops on sciencecommunication for scientists. We have noticed marked variations in response to ouropening question 'why bother with science communication?'

The more senior scientist s tend to express resentment. They are in denial-theirposition is summarised by this statement:

xii INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW

people don't need to know about science. They shouldjustlet us get on with the job .

When we argue strongly that the community needs to become morescientifically there is a subtle shift of position:

I'm a scientist. It's what I do best. Let other people do the communicating.

Their point of view is easily understood. They grew up in a world of certainties,entrained into science at an early age, secure in the knowledge that there were factssomewhere 'out there' to be discovered and that, once discovered, these facts wouldimmediately be accepted by an admiring public. They were never expected tocommunicate and may even have gone into science because they were poorcommunicators.

The ideas that science is culturally dependent, that knowledge is constructed,threaten their mastery of their discipline. They feel uncomfortable, unhappy andyearn for the certainties and security of their laboratories and their white coats .From this position it is a short step to agreement that while science communicationmight be a good thing it is not for them because

people wouldn't understand what I'm doing.

The sub-text is that their science is so complex and they have invested so manyyears in acquiring their expert status that they find it difficult to imagine that it canbe understood by someone who has not put in the same effort. It threatens boththeir standing with their colleagues and their self-respect.

This idea that their science might be accessible to a lay public is abhorrent tomany western scientists who seek certainty and absolute truth . Theirs is a view akinto those of the mediaeval guilds that protected their knowledge by allowing onlyinitiates into full understanding of the one truth. Knowledge was power and wasnot to be let go; its communication was only permitted between initiates. It oftenrequired special language and signs; and it was not for the general public.

Graduate students and newly fledged scientists do not hold these views sorigidly. They are still only on the verge of disenchantment and have largelyretained their enthusiasm for their subject and even some proselytising zeal. It isimperative that this be nurtured.

In summary, increasing the public understanding of science is a worthwhileendeavour that creates an intelligent, informed and skilled group within thecommunity. Such a group is an extremely valuable resource for the community.Increasing public awareness of science, however, is a longer term project, but onethat, if successful, can contribute enormously to social well-being as it creates acommunity that is confident in its possession of scientific ideas and is comfortableabout raising children to have the same confidence.

It is the intent of Science Communication in Theory and Practice to range faracross the whole field of science communication. It gives both a theoretical basisfor the newly emerging discipline and a series of personal histories, the authors ofwhich are effectively saying 'this is what we did' and in all cases , they did it very

SUE STOCKLMAYER, MIKE GORE AND CHRIS BRYANT xiii

successfully. They are offering their experience but none of them is prescriptivelysaying 'this is what you should do'. What they hope is that the prospective sciencecommunicator will shop amongst them and use whatever is fitting for his or hercircumstances.

The structure of the book may need some explanation. It falls naturally into fourparts, and an Epilogue. Part 1 consists of five chapters that are concerned with thedisciplinary basis of science communication. Susan Stocklmayer explores images ofscience together with the implications they have for the effective communication ofscience. She dissects gender issues and draws attention to the 'masculinity' ofscience-the majority of practitioners are male, and thus are poor role models forgirls. She points to the gender bias of texts, and dismisses biological factors as theprime determinant. She describes a constructivist model for learning and considersthe consequences this has for communication. Glen Aikenhead sees science asculture, and the interaction of this culture with the 'culture of a public immersed intheir everyday lives' is the essence of science communication. Sciencecommunication is 'crossing the border' and, when those borders are not crossedsuccessfully confusion reigns . One of the editors still recalls with discomfort thedebilitating gastric overload when the politeness. acquired as a child. of 'finishingeverything on your plate ' clashed with the politeness and generosity of his Indianhosts, to whom an empty plate meant 'please may I have some more'. Overloadsare often experienced during the process of communicating science and, becausemost people are polite and have no wish to hurt feelings, the mores of the twocultures are not explored. Science communication permits an unthreateningexploration of the two cultures .

Jon Turney examines the depiction of science in literature, and sciencecommunication as a genre in its own right, and reflects on what qualities are presentin good popular science writing. As the genre draws its inspiration from such a widerange of human endeavour he wonders whether it wil1 ever be possible to categoriseit. Lawrence Prel1i sees science as discourse and discusses the implications ofrhetorical understanding of argumentation in science, and the implications forscientific literacy. He has some trenchant comments on the science literacymovements -

if the public cannot grasp these essentials (a majority of Americans in one surveybelieve that Israel is an Arab nation) why should we expect that science literacycampaigns can elevate their comprehension of the complex principles of science?

These prophetic words have recently been echoed by an influential report of theHouse of Lords who wish to move the game from 'public understanding' to'awareness' of science.

Richard Eckersley takes afin de siecle look at science and sees harbingers for theloss of confidence in modern science at the beginning of the last century. He findsscience at a threshold of opportunity provided by science communication. Itremains to be seen whether the opportunity wil1 be seized; already the first

xiv INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW

skirmishes - mad cow disease and genetically modified foods. for example - seem tobe lost.

Part 2 is concerned with research into the learning of science in informalsituations and it is still a new field. In fact. Siess and Shrensky draw a powerfulcomparison between science communication and rain making and suggest that thebasis for believing that it is effective is weak or none-existent. This iconoclasticview is challenged by Leonie Rennie. Rennie is one of the few with substantialqual ifications in the area; in particular. her recent research has focused on the impactof science centres on the community. She points out that asking whether peoplelearn science on a visit to a science centre is to ask the wrong question . It is farbetter to ask whether visits to science centres contribute to improved long termrelationships with science. John Gilbert strives towards an understanding of thecompeting roles of education and entertainment in science communication.illustrating it with original research . Susan Stocklmayer then summarises the'understanding' versus 'awareness' debate. comparing and contrasting the formaland informal learning of a science with a model based on the constructivist view.

Part 3 comprises three chapters dealing with aspects of the media and their rolein science communication. Peter Spinks. an eminent journalist with much experienceon major papers in the UK and Australia. distils his experience into a manual forscientists on working in and with the print media. Deborah Cohen. of the BritishBroadcasting Corporation. describes the art of making radio science programs. whileIan Allen. of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation does the same for television .Allen also discusses the presentation of good science on the world wide web andcontrasts this new art with the long established one of making television scienceshows.

The practical aspects of science communication. in all their manifestations formthe heart of the next five chapters and make up part 4. Peter Briggs. executiveofficer of the British Association for the Advancement of science outline s thehistory of the BA and its role in encouraging the formation of other . similarAssociations in different parts of the world. Science festivals are now commonthroughout the world. Once they were few and far between and the EdinburghScience Festival is. if not the oldest, certainly one of the first two or three. SimonGage. the present Director. outlines the forces that gave rise to the Festival and itssubsequent history. This chapter is a detailed prescription for mounting such anevent and is an invaluable primer for those contemplating it.

Michael Gore and Chris Bryant examine the different sides of a symbiosis. of thecoming together of a science centre and a university science faculty. Gore outlinesthe genesis of Questacon, the National Science and Technology Centre of Australiaand along the way offers many interesting insights into such things as exhibit designand science theatre . Bryant. from the Australian National University. is concernedwith the last 12 years of fruitful collaboration with Questacon and the growth of agraduate program in science communication. probably the first in the world. Hedescribes how the collaboration finally brought forth a flourishing university centrefocusing on the public awareness of science.

SUE STOCKLMAYER, MIKE GORE AND CHRIS BRYANT xv

A very different model is presented by Vivian Altmann, Modesto Tamez andDennis Bartels . They base their program on community needs. Their approachemploys hands on exploration as a tool for reinforcing social values and affirmingthe social worth of the individual. They remind us that we should not forget otherplaces that do not need large buildings, budgets and staff to achieve effective sciencecommunication.

The Epilogue, by Nobel Laureate Peter Doherty describes a personal odyssey inscience communication. His is essentially an account of his overnight transitionfrom eminent scienti st to public media figure . It is the story of what he found to beimportant. Things which might appear self evident to a member of the public - 'uselanguage like a normal human being' - are not necessarily so to scientists used toconversing in a sort of scientific 'shortspeak' . Doherty's insights during histransformation should bring comfort to many lesser scientists uncomfortable withtheir perceived failure to make themselves understood

This is a book, then, that can be read on several levels. It can be read as atheoretical basis for science communication; as a practical guide for would bescience communicators; or as a contemplative projection of what culture of sciencemight be like in the 21st Century if the enterprise of communication is successful.

National Centre for the Public Awareness ofScienceAustralian National University, Canberra ACT 0200 Australia

REFERENCES

Durant, J. R., Evans, G. A. & Thomas, G. P. (1989) . The public understanding ofscience . Nature (Land), 340, 11-14

Gregory, J. & Miller, S. (1998) . Science in Public: Communication , Culture andCredibility . Plenum Trade, New York and London .