There was an inevitable irony in the timing of a recent report on “science and society” published by the House of Lords select committee on science and technology. The report was released the day after the UK government announced that it was going to invest £530m in the development of a superjumbo jet, and that the biggest scientific project ever undertaken in the UK, a third-generation synchrotron-radiation source, would be built at the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory.
What should have been a good day for the government backfired as the press focused instead on the anger of staff at the UK’s existing synchrotron source at the Daresbury Laboratory and the “north-south divide”. The superjumbo jet received plenty of coverage but, not surprisingly, there were suggestions that its announcement had been timed to coincide with the controversial synchrotron decision. But when dealing with the media, as the House of Lords report makes clear, one must take the rough with the smooth.
For physicists, so long the archetypal mad scientists, the report is further proof that – with the exception of the long-lived problem of what to do with nuclear waste – most public concern about, and opposition to, science now focuses on the life sciences. The report was written, say the Lords, “against the background of the continuing furore over GM [genetically modified] foods…with public trust rocked by the BSE fiasco and widespread suspicion and unease about the rapid progress of biotechnology”. As the Lords note, “it is a paradox that this crisis of trust should take place at a time when the public is finding science, engineering and technology more interesting and exciting than ever”.
But now is not the time for complacency. For as long as the physics community relies on the government for the bulk of its funding, physicists would be advised to pay attention to the debate about science and society. And although the new money available to support these activities is small, it is essential that physicists continue to apply for it as vigorously as they do at present.
The report is strong on background and analysis, although many of its 26 recommendations are more aspirational than actual. Still, the first recommendation – that the mini-industry currently known as the “public understanding of science” should be called something less patronizing, something more like “science and society” – is long overdue.
The report’s value lies in drawing many strands of the debate together and showing that there is no magic answer or correct solution. Most people first learn about science at school, and later through the media. But these areas have their own priorities – priorities over which scientists have little or no influence. However, the report’s bottom line is clear: “There must be a substantial culture change in UK science and scientific policy-making if public trust is to be restored. We must have more direct, open and timely dialogue with the public – listening as well as talking.” The difficult part will be to ensure that this improved dialogue with the public, when it happens, somehow informs the necessary policy- and decision-making processes.
Busy physicists will complain that with students to teach, grants to apply for, research projects to supervize and industrial spin-offs to think of, they simply do not have time for activities related to science and society. But plenty of their colleagues find time to give public lectures and to write popular books and newspaper articles. The Lords acknowledge that some scientists are simply not suited to this type of activity. But even this sizeable minority could play its part by not criticizing colleagues who make the effort to communicate with the world at large.
Moreover, the underlying goal of many of the activities in science and society is to persuade more bright young people to study science at school and university, and to convince the government/tax-payer to fund basic research. What further motivation is needed?
