as costermongers, corn-chandlers, dogs meat men, chimneysweep’s boys, executioner’s assistants, crimps, pimps, organ grinders, grooms of the stool, fullers, gentlemen of the road, members of the aristocracy and ladies of the night (to mention but a few) all clamour to press on you their views on string theory, stem cell therapy, plate tectonics, catalytic cracking.
The government has called for Society to have its say on science.
I hope your supervisors and lab managers will be patient as you listen to the throngs at the gates of your institutions, and that you will wear extravagent disguises when in public to avoid molestation by the public anxious to press their scientific opinions on you.
Seriously. What a silly idea!
The other day, a taxi driver opined to me that whereas he was convinced climate change was happening, he put it down to the Earth’s axis having been detabilized by H-bomb tests. Obviously, those scientists know nothing.
I know, let’s have a prime-time TV show in which scientific ideas compete, in a Strglle for Existence, to coin a phrase, for a part in a West-End show, the whole proletarian farrago hosted by some flesh-crawlingly revolting, bespangled and overpaid homunculus, and the public can phone up on a premium rate number, at least 50p of each call going to the Universities’ Funding Council, to vote on the best scientific hypothesis.
The one with the most votes will be pronounced as … in a word … ‘true’.
In which case, the most likely scientific hypotheses are not those that fulfil various stringent epistemological tests but which have a very high sentimentality quotient and come from Liverpool.
You are Boris
YeltsinJohnson and I claim my 4 pack of lager-free alcohol.I haven’t read all the associated documentation but this seems to me a very good idea. The issue of the public’s lack of understanding of science is well known. The matter of scientists’ lack of comprehension of the public’s lack of understanding is perhaps less evident. I applaud what the government is aiming to achieve in this initiative and would urge constructive engagement on both sides.
I agree, Stephen.
I’ve just read the press release and apparently one of the government’s aims is to “convey the relevance of science.”
Does society really think science is irrelevant?
No Angela: but the government obviously does.
You are Boris
YeltsinJohnson and I claim my 4 pack of lager-free alcoholHistory will show Boris Johnson to have been the finest statesman the world has produced in this or any other century.
Richard: No Angela: but the government obviously does.
Going to have to challenge you on that one Richard – why do you say that? For sure, the New Labour govt has done plenty over the past 11 years to earn the cynicism of its citizenry but this particular initiative strikes me as an honest stab at an important issue. I don’t think our interests or the public’s will be best served by the presumption that no good can come of this.
At the end of the day, most research is funded by the taxpayer and they have a perfect right to have a say in how that money is spent. If we can’t find ways to explain to them properly what the priorities should be (and we’re not doing a brilliant job obviously), then that’s a failure that we need to tackle – constructively.
Stephen – I must disagree with you here. I read the press release and found, not to my surprise, that it contained virtually no semantic content. For a government now discredited in the view of the public to hitch its wagon to science will be worse than if they’d done nothing, especially as there seem to be no concrete proposals available for how young people might be engaged with science.
Stephen
if you do an experiment 11 times and it gives one answer, and the twelfth time you get something different, do you publish that as the ‘real’ result?
Do you _really _ think it’s a cynical New Labour ploy? That’s just a wee bit too cynical for me. As I said above, there’s plenty to grumble about in this govt’s record, but their record on science funding isn’t bad. Do you remember what it was like under the other lot?
The proposal at this stage is for a consultation exercise – seeking participation from a wide range of interested parties. I am at least pleased to see the govt promoting this issue. If scientists opt out, it will likely be to their cost.
Every time I’m accused of being too cynical, especially where government is concerned, I find that it’s not my cyn-o-meter that needs recalibrating.
But for sure — as scientists we need to take any opportunity that arises, snatch it and make it our own. To look down our distinguished noses from our ivory towers would be disastrous. Shrewd as snakes but innocent as doves. That’s us.
Richard: if you do an experiment 11 times and it gives one answer, and the twelfth time you get something different, do you publish that as the ‘real’ result?
Nice rhetorical trick there Richard… ;-)
But let’s face it, there is a serious issue here – one that will outlast the present administration. I think we need to show that we are serious about reaching out to the public and should perhaps try to treat this initiative at face value.
Just to clear up my mess – my 10.57 reply was to Henry’s remark…
I think we should, as I say above, milk this initiative for all it’s worth — while retaining a healthy attitude of cynicism.
We are scientists after all…
Note:
“It is worth”, or “its worth?”
Enquiring minds need to know.
Do you really think it’s a cynical New Labour ploy?
If it’s not, then it’s so vacuous to be something on which we should not be wasting our time. We’ve been here before, haven’t we? So many times. The Royal Society had COPUS. We now have quite a few courses in science communication, at Imperial and elsewhere. We’ve even had distinguished professors and some other people officially engaged with the issue of the public engagement of science.
Dr J. Rohn of this parish has been looking into Science Fairs at school level and Britain has museums and events of every kind designed to engage the wider public, notably the various Science Festivals. I am pleased to be a patron of the Cambridge Science Festival which has been working hard for more than a decade, with some success, in engaging with the public, and particularly young people. But this is one of several.
Yet the document says nothing of any of this. Does the government think that all of the above has been an unsuccessful waste of time, so unsuccessful as to be not worth mentioning, and that therefore we should start again, from the beginning?
Or is it that they were bored one day and, without doing any homework at all, felt like launching yet another meaningless initiative?
I know which one I’d choose.
Oh dear, that injured foot of yours does seem to have put you in a very bad mood…!
The announcement itself does not necessarily imply that the govt is ignoring all the good work that has gone before. To my mind this is an ongoing struggle and one that will need refreshment and renewal from time to time. It seems to have the support of the Royal Society…
Is Nature covering this? Could you be persuaded to take on the assignment…?!
Richard: I think we should… milk this initiative for all it’s worth — while retaining a healthy attitude of cynicism.
If by healthy cynicism you mean ‘skepticism’, then I agree totally.
On the grammatical issue, “it’s worth” and “its worth” both work in this context surely, with slightly different meanings…?
BTW – where did you get your cyn-o-meter? I was thinking of changing my current teletubbie-branded model… (which I would then offer to Henry…)
I have to agree with Henry. I’m always a bit suspicious when the government suddenly decides to begin a ‘debate’ in ‘society’. It’s usually little more than a chance for all the nutters to come out of the shadows and thrown in their two cents worth.
I for one would like to know what the government thinks about science… maybe they could kick-start the process by telling us that…
Is Nature covering this?
I have asked, and the answer is “EVERYWHERE”! (Their caps)
Angela: for one would like to know what the government thinks about science… maybe they could kick-start the process by telling us that…
From the press release: “Science improves the quality of our daily life, underpins the UK’s prosperity and will play a key role in meeting the challenges facing the world in the 21st century.” Etc.
Bland and pious? Maybe. But I think we can take it as read that the govt sees some value in science and it is up to us to re-enforce that view. You as a journalist with scientific interests are well-placed to contribute positively to this and I hope you will do so.
Maxine: Glad to hear it – look forward to the coverage.
Boris: Where are you? – the cynics are having a field day!
Where are you? – the cynics are having a field day!
Boris: :) In the forest to pick mushrooms… :). I think, as I read Nature every week with great interest, that at least this issue is about the topic. Science is nothing sacred like the old-Egyptian religion which was out of public eyes.
Richard, scientist should stand more by true than by his/her personal interest (=income).
E. Rutherford, to my knowledge, once said: if you are not able to explain your science to char woman, you do not, in fact, understand what your reasearch is about.
The public interest should be much more important than citations or impact factors.
Yes, well I expect Angela at the BBC and others at Nature and elsewhere will do their best to interview the government and ask them penetrating questions such as why it is that they want to have a Big Conversation (remember that?) with the public about science, when they have done their best to dumb it down in all the areas that matter.
Thanks to the gradual erosion of status in the teaching profession, and the trainwreck that is the national curriculum, simply finding science teachers qualified to teach their own subjects is an uphill struggle, and, as I understand it, whereas standards in maths and literacy may or may not be holding up, the standards of science expected in the general science curricula (these replace individual subjects) are low compared with the individual subjects as taught In My Day.
So, Stephen, whereas it’s touching to be able to see good in everything and everyone (even Sauron, Lord Voldemort
and Richard Dawkinswere not evil in the beginning) experience suggests that this initiative is just one more cowpat to add to a midden that already towers above the plain.I can’t argue with your analysis of the state of UK education (it’s spot-on) and certainly understand the sense of disappointment but…
But, but, but, but, but, but.
I don’t think the govt set out to undermine education/science. More likely, with some good intentions (public sector pay deals not being one of them), they found that it was harder to achieve improvements in the system than they had anticipated. And maybe some of the ideas put in place were mis-guided, and back-fired. But these problems are difficult – and if we simply dismiss any effort at improvement, fail to engage, give up, well, what then?
If we seriously want to tackle these issues, we have to engage with the public and with politicians, whether we like it or not.
Raising my glass of late night sherry in everyone’s direction for the excellent tone and content of the debate.
Do let it continue, the sherry is low but there is always Emma’s laudanum to have a bang at.
@ Stephen: you are of course entirely right. In the words of a popular beat combo: I’m just a soul whose intentions are good/ Oh Lord, please don’t let me be misunderstood.
There is a blog entry in this, I’m sure, but for now the short answer is well, I wouldn’t start from here.
@ Mr Darwin: thank you for your kind offer. Mrs Darwin’s laudanum would be just the thing for my hurty foot.
Never mind the national curriculum and finding teachers, they can’t even mark exams now. My daughter is one of many thousands who finishes her school year today with a letter of apology from her headteacher instead of her SATs results.
From The Times
The prospect of mass appeals over the Standard Assessment Tests (Sats) for 1.2m 11-and 14-year-olds has grown as concern switches from scripts delayed and lost to the accuracy of the marking itself……
James Elliott, head teacher at Talbot combined school in Poole, Dorset, said: “When some of our papers did finally arrive last week, the maths papers had been returned totally unmarked. Secondary schools use these tests as the basis of their class groupings. It’s very hard on the kids to be left in limbo like this.”
Other evidence has included marks added up wrongly and “totally implausible” differences in reading and writing scores given to the same pupil……
“Quangocrat” Ken Boston, lured from Australia six years ago to sort out an earlier exam debacle, receives £328,000 in salary and perks. The package, greater than that paid to Mervyn King, governor of the Bank of England, jumped 15% from 2006-7 to 2007-8.
From another article in The Times
An 11-year-old child who had performed much better than a classmate in the Key Stage 2 English test was marked lower.
Child A wrote about Pip Davenport, a fairground inventor: “If he wasent doing enthing els heel help his uncle Herry at the funfair during the day. And had stoody at nigh on other thing he did was invent new rides.
“Becoues he invented a lot of new rides he won a prize. He didn’t live with his mum he lived with his wife.”
This received one mark more than Child B who wrote: “Quickly, it became apparent that Pip was a fantastic rider: a complete natural. But it was his love of horses that led to a tragic accident. An accident that would change his life forever.
“At the age of 7, he was training for a local competition when his horse, Mandy, swerved sideways unexpectedly, throwing Pip on to the ground, paralysed.”
Apologies for the long post, but I am not happy about this.
@Maxine – sorry to hear that. My daughter has her results (though they were late). Hope your situation is resolved soon. Amazing how educational admin can be so bad!
@Henry – I felt wrung out at the end of yesterday – but enjoyed the exchange! Good to have some convergence. Am also a big fan of “Don’t let me be misunderstood” (Elvis Costello’s cover).
@Charles – Thanks for the offer but no need for laudanum: exhausted. Enjoyed a pleasant lunch at the George and Dragon in Downe last weekend. Are you a patron?
@ Maxine – my sympathies! Cromer Junior did at least get the SATs results but there appear to have been some marking discrepancies of the kind you mention.
As Mr. Darwin so pointedly asserts, – when was the last time anything constructive came from asking the general public about their opinion?
As to science and general knowledge, I believe the public “has reached rock bottom and is digging”.
Indeed! Hooray for elitism. As Tom Lehrer noted, the reason that most folk songs are so bad is that they were written by ‘the people’.
An interesting philosophical debate is in danger of beginning here.
As scientists, we train for (peanuts and) years, specialising, understanding and developing extremely complex, technical issues and learning how to communicate with our peers. Some of us do this well, some do it poorly (there’s a Nature Network blog about how to write a good paper, ain’t there?).
We are often charged with being unable to communicate our complex ideas to the general public. We are not trained to do this, though this appears to be changing. How can we enthuse and teach an audience who often does not have the minimum experience required to understand a new topic (constructive alignment for any pedagogists out there)? We do have to relate our work to the public, but it is challenging beyond our current training! A new class of undergraduates, trained in science communication (and pedagogy) appears to be a useful direction, to me at least.
On a personal point, in reply to Stephen @ 21/7, 10.30. I would say the public have as much right to demand how (perhaps more precisely that they understand exactly how) tax money is spent in science, as they do in education, environmental, health, military or other matters that the government has departments for.
The government doesn’t always bow to those demands – anyone else remember protesting about a recent illegal invasion of a sovereign country that the public was clearly against?
Perhaps a better way to give the public access to publicly paid for research would be to encourage a more sensible access scheme to the literature.
At the moment, access is generally restricted to journals in university libraries, which are paid for by library subscription, which come from overheads which (generally) come from researchers’ funding, which (generally) come from the tax payers. So the poor old tax payer pays for the research, AND pays to get it published, then can’t access it.
Nuts to that!
As Tom Lehrer noted, the reason that most folk songs are so bad is that they were written by ‘the people’.
Boris: To my knowledge, great composers tended to appreciate folk music and to believe that their own music is for people (e.g. Mozart – watch it from 8:00)
I have spent some time reading the Government document, and am at a loss to think who among the general public would spend two hours reading fifty government-generated prose, written as only that sport of H. sapiens can. While there were some gems, there was some wisdom much was, as Captain Fitzroy used to say during his visits to the hold, bilge.
My feeling is that given how much information the masses now receive, simply adding more science to the avalanche will do little to improve science literacy. This adult generation (present company excepted) is lost, the job must be to rescue the next, and that must start with the basics:
• compost existing science courses an not a few science teachers, undumbup school science courses and improve science teachers pay and conditions
• make studying science at university financially advantageous compared to other degrees on which society will depend. I can see future circumstances in which many scientific displines may be crucial to our continued health and possibly survival. I cannot see legislators rising and demanding more media studies graduates, unless there is a world-threatening shortage of door stops.
• Publicly funded broadcasting should have science communication as part of their remit.
• Treat young scientists rather better then at present and in government-funded institutions make public outreach part of their responsibilities if their research interests allow.
Other factors are outside government control: science is poorly represented in the prints, that is a matter for their editors and their understanding of what their readership wants. I think that many science writers have done a sterling job, and I raise a cup of tea (a little early in the day for sherry) in their direction.
Without the basics done properly, another generation of young people leave schoon indiferent about science, more university science education departments will close, fewer good science garduates will be available to communicate with the public. While I admire the government’s recognition of the problem and its attempt to address it, as my tailor said of the local soccer team’s new strip: you can’t polish a turd.
I think we should be realistic about who the public actually is, and if they could give a tinker’s cuss about science.
You can meet a fair slice of today’s young people, the flower of England’s
yoofyouth, on the 19.45 between Norwich and Sheringham any weekday evening. They will, if male, be obnoxiously drunk, lewd and loud. If female, they will also be obnoxiously drunk, and will have tried, rarely with any style or success, to squeeze outsize figures into a variety of impractical garments that would not disgrace ladies of the night. Even though in broad daylight.Last night, the train conductress accosted a young woman of this sort and asked for her fare. The woman said she wanted a single to Cromer, at the child rate. The conductress asked her age, and the passenger told her that she was fourteen, and gave her date of birth. And this when the passenger concerned was heavily pregnant.
Science? Schmience! It’s all very well for us in the rarefied corners of the Nature Network, but the real world hasn’t advanced at all since Hogarth painted The Rake’s Progress.
Some rake had clearly made illegal progress with your female passenger.
If we pretend that my wife represents the general public or society, then it is clear to me that society doesn’t want to hear a single word uttered on the topic of science.
Interestingly my young offspring have a similar inclination towards the relevance of science. When they ask a question regarding a topic for which they might considered to be too young, and I slide into full science mode and give them a proper scientific answer, their previously lively eyes soon glaze over and they wander off quickly to do something more interesting, such as picking their nose.
Science is the perfect way to defuse any potentially awkward question.
If we pretend that my wife represents the general public or society, then it is clear to me that society doesn’t want to hear a single word uttered on the topic of science.
Mrs Gee is also part of that constituency. However, she is a member of the Nature Network and enjoys its light-hearted spirit. I think that what put people off — people who might otherwise be mildly interested — is science’s often expressed tone of earnest seriousness, not to say goggle-eyed mania, which is offputting in any context. NN is great because although it allows scientists to talk seriously about science, it tolerates a great deal of tomfoolery. This won’t be attractive to everyone, of course.
While we’re bringing our better half’s into the topic, mine recently pointed out that when I speak to her about sciencey mumbo jumbo, I aim too low, she gets it. She’s indeed a smart lass (she agreed to marry yours truly) and speaks better English than me, even though she’s Catalan and done no science since high school… yet when I lecture upper undergraduate Ecology students (on ecological modelling), the glazed looks generally mean I’ve gone too high. Scary stuff.
It’s a fine art getting the balance right, relating new concepts to existing knowledge, often requiring trial and error. But largely impossible to replicate as each different group you preach to has a different background.
Henry, I think this guy would suit the society you have talked about :).
I think few people can really enjoy science to speak about it in such a way.
Having defended this initiative so vociferously earlier in the week, I thought that I too should download the document and prepare to enter the dialogue process. Well, I had painted myself into a corner…
As Charles said, the prose is not to die for. I haven’t finished yet but a couple of worthy points that I have picked up on are, firstly, the emphasis on engaging children and, secondly, the promotion of the idea that public engagement by scientists is something that needs to be rewarded—though I haven’t seen much so far in the way of concrete proposals on that one. There is also a valuable acknowledgement of the notion that engagement has to be a two-way process. It shouldn’t be the scientists who do all the talking.
Henry’s point that, frankly, not everyone is going to be interested is certainly worth bearing in mind, so that we calibrate our expectations, but it might also induce us to think about our approach. Mark T’s experience with his kids provides a familiar example of how difficult it can be to connect – though he may want to think about modulating his “shift into full science mode” when discoursing with children! As Mike pointed out, you gotta know your audience!
Anyway, I am resolved to engage in the process and hope others will do the same.
My children love sciencey explanations. The younger (8) has been known to read anatomy texts for interest. Yes, read, not just look at the pictures.
I bet she asks lots of questions and am guessing that you have a good idea about how high to pitch the reply…
Yes, and yes.
You can’t launch into a full-on mumbo jumbo thing. You have to gauge the reaction, and ratchet up or down accordingly.
I had the same thing when I was interviewed for Science Alliance earlier this week: I started low but when I realized the marketing/PR person who did it actually has a science degree I could raise my game a bit. Sometimes in seminars I find people looking glazed so I change tack and will explain something more simply (I’ve been known to backtrack in order to do that).
It’s not just knowing your audience, but responding to them in real time, which I’ll admit is not an easy trick to pull off.
It’s not just knowing your audience, but responding to them in real time, which I’ll admit is not an easy trick to pull off.
Boris: Exactly! That is the most important at basic school, grammar school, university… or in TV :).
I know people who like science too…
But I think the government’s website sadly speaks for itself. On Wednesday last week I blogged the fact that only one comment had been left on the DIUS’s Science and Society site as part of the consultation.
In five days that’s increased by a grand total of none.
Frankly, I am not sure if I like science… What science is? Is it “school science”? I think school science is rather boring and frustrating as you need to know catechism truth of established doctrines. Further… is science defined by current published works? If so, I do not like most of them as they are boring and almost frustrating again (because of the repeating, over and over, the same). However, if science is looked at as an adventure of ideas with historical and philosophical context, I like – even love – science. For instance, excellent textbook tracking science in such an amazing way is W. J. Moore´s Physical Chemistry.
Boris, indeed. I understand from my friends who teach the nation’s youth that the science curriculum is ‘dumbed down’, taught with little of the context or adventure of which you speak and I have heard that supporting educational materials are provided to financially-pressed schools by companies with aims other than the objective teaching of science in mind.
Any government education minister, past or present who colluded in such debasement should be horsewhipped on the steps of his (or her) club.
You hold ‘em, Charles, and I’ll whip ’em.
Thanks, Charles! I think there is no “objevtive” teaching of science… to admit this is the first step to “objectivity” :).
I would like to ask you if any of your contemporaries is resurrcected… that were great times of science! Hermann von Helmholtz? Ernst Mach? Gregor Mendel? James Maxwell?
I remember that Sir K. R. Popper used quotation of Lord Acton in his famous book The Logic of Scientific Discovery that said if anybody does not like history of science, she/he doesn not like science at all :).
Boris, if Ernest had my good fortune, would that make him Mach Two?
Only if he wrote his weblog while travelling at 1400 mph.
Charles, thanks for comment :). That is the identity problem (no, I dont speak about sexual orientation…) what does make the thing (e.g. Ernst Mach) to be the same thing? It depends on philosophical point of view… I am pragmatist, so Ernst Mach is Ernst Mach if he “works” as Ernst Mach… however, I have not met Ernst Mach ever, so I am not able (as well as in your case) to say if he would be himself if he would resurrected.
Btw… it is an interesting question how apostles and Mary Magdalene could recognize that Resurrected was Jesus, their Lord :).
Richard: Yes, it would be an interesting test of theory of relativity in living (can be something called “living” by such a velocity?) things.