Abstract
In this paper we critically review recent developments in policies, practices and philosophies pertaining to the mediation between science and the public within the EU and the UK, focusing in particular on the current paradigm of Public Understanding of Science and Technology (PEST) which seeks to depart from the science information-transmission associated with previous paradigms, and enact a deliberative democracy model. We first outline the features of the current crisis in democracy and discuss deliberative democracy as a response to this crisis. We then map out and critically review the broad outlines of recent policy developments in public-science mediation in the EU and UK contexts, focusing on the shift towards the deliberative-democratic model. We conclude with some critical thoughts on the complex interrelationships between democracy, equality, science and informal pedagogies in public-science mediations. We argue that science and democracy operate within distinct value-spheres that are not necessarily consonant with each other. We also problematize the now common dismissal of information-transmission of science as inimical to democratic engagement, and argue for a reassessment of the role and importance of informal science learning for the “lay” public, provided within the framework of a deliberative democracy that is not reducible to consensus building or the mere expression of opinions rooted in social and cultural givens. This, we argue, can be delivered by a model of PEST that is creative and experimental, with both educational and democratic functions.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
A clarification of terminology is in order at the start: we will use “public-science mediation” as a generic description to refer to the whole field of activities, policies and institutional spaces that aim to “improve” the relation between science and the public, irrespective of the paradigm or model at work (known as Science Communication, Public Understanding of Science or Public Engagement with Science and Technology). Thus, public-science mediation includes the whole spectrum of these attempts ranging from what is known as the more didactic approach premised on the deficit model to anti-pedagogic approaches that see dialogue as the sole objective such activities should aim at.
Here the use “majoritarian” and “minoritarian” has nothing to do with belonging to a statistical minority defined according to one axis of “identity” or another, as opposed to a statistical majority, though it may coincide with this statistical distribution. We use “minoritarian” in Deleuze’s sense to refer to “a non-denumerable set” (Deleuze and Guattari 2004: 513) or an ensemble that acts and thinks in ways that cannot be classified or accommodated into the existing dominant norms of political practice, and thus into the empirical gamut of normed political practices. This is what Rancière calls the count of the uncounted: “The people [demos] is a supplementary existence that inscribes the count of the uncounted, or part of those who have no part—that is, in the last instance, the equality of speaking beings without which inequality itself is inconceivable” (Rancière 2010: 33).
More information on Sciencewise can be found on: http://www.sciencewise-erc.org.uk/cms/; and on Beacons for Public Engagement: http://www.publicengagement.ac.uk/.
References
Aikenhead, Glen S. 1996. Science education: Border crossing into the subculture of science. Studies in Science Education 27(1): 1–52.
Anderson, Benedict. 1991. Imagined communities. London: Verso.
BA 2002. Science in society. Advice to the Office of Science and Technology from the BA 2002 [cited 14 May 2010]. Available from http://www.britishscienceassociation.org/web/News/ReportsandPublications/Reports/Key_publications/_SIS_advice_to_OST.htm.
Bachelard, Gaston. 2001. The formation of the scientific mind. Manchester: Clinamen Press Ltd.
Badiou, Alain. 2006. Metapolitics. London: Verso.
Balibar, Étienne. 2004. We, the people of Europe? Princeton & Oxford: Princeton University Press.
Bandelli, Andrea, Elly A. Konijn, and Jaap W. Willems. 2009. The need for public participation in the governance of science centers. Museum Management and Curatorship 24(2): 89–104.
Barber, Benjamin. 1984. Strong democracy: Participatory politics for a new age. Berkeley, Los Angeles & London: University of California Press.
Barnes, Barry, David Bloor, and John Henry. 1996. Scientific knowledge: A sociological analysis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Barton, Angela C. 2002. Urban science education: A commitment to equity, justice and a sense of place. Studies in Science Education 38(1): 1–38.
Bauer, Martin W., Nick Allum, and Steve Miller. 2007. What can we learn from 25 years of PUS survey research? Liberating and expanding the agenda. Public Understanding of Science 16(1): 79–95.
Beck, Ulrich. 1992. Risk society: Towards a new modernity (trans: Ritter, M.). London: Sage.
Bensaude-Vincent, Bernadette. 2001. A genealogy of the increasing gap between science and the public. Public Understanding of Science 10(1): 99–113.
Bernstein, Basil. 2000. Pedagogy, symbolic control and identity. New York and Oxford: Rowman and Littlefield.
BIS 2010. Science for all: Report and action plan from the science for all expert group (to the Dept for Business Innovation & Skills). Available from http://www.bis.gov.uk/assets/biscore/corporate/docs/s/science-for-all-report.pdf.
Bodmer, Walter F. 1986. The public understanding of science. London: Birkbeck College.
Bourdieu, Pierre. 2004. Science of science and reflexivity. Cambridge: Polity.
Burchill, Kevin. 2007. UK governmental public dialogue on science and technology, 1998–2007: Consistency, hybridity and boundary work. In Paper presented to STEG group at King’s College London.
Burchill, Kevin, Sarah Franklin, and Kerry Holden. 2009. Public culture and professional science. London: BIOS.
Collins, Harry, and Robert Evans. 2002. The third wave of science studies: studies of expertise and experience. Social Studies of Science 32(2): 235–296.
Collins, Harry, and Trevor Pinch. 1998. The golem. What you should know about science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Council of the European Union. 2000. Conclusions of the Lisbon European Council. Council of the European Union SN 100/00: 23–24 Mar 2000.
Cunningham, Christine M., and Jenifer V. Helms. 1998. Sociology of science as a means to a more authentic, inclusive science education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 35(5): 483–499.
De Greiff, Pablo. 2000. Deliberative democracy and group representation. Social Theory and Practice 26(3): 397–415.
Deleuze, Gilles, and Félix Guattari. 2004. A thousand plateaus. London: Continuum.
DIUS 2008. A vision for science and society: A consultation on developing a new strategy for the UK 2008 [cited 15 Apr 2010]. Available from http://interactive.dius.gov.uk/scienceandsociety/files/A_Vision_for_Science_and_Society.pdf.
Dryzek, John. 2000. Deliberative democracy and beyond: liberals, critics, contestations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Durodie, Bill. 2003. Limitations of public dialogue in science and the rise of new ‘experts’. Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy 6(4): 82–92.
European Commission 2009. Global governance of science: Report of the expert group on global governance of science to the EU Science, Economy and Society Directorate [cited 22 July 2009]. Available from http://ec.europa.eu/research/science-society/document_library/pdf_06/global-governance-020609_en.pdf.
European Commission 2007. Taking European knowledge society seriously: Report to the European Commission. Directorate-General for Research [cited 22 July 2009]. Available from http://ec.europa.eu/research/science-society/document_library/pdf_06/european-knowledge-society_en.pdf.
Felt, Ulrike, and Maximilian Fochler. 2008. The bottom-up meanings of the concept of public participation in science and technology. Science and Public Policy 35(7): 489–499.
Fjaestad, Bjorn. 2007. Why journalists report science as they do. In Journalism, science and society, eds. M.W. Bauer, and M. Bucchi. New York and Abingdon: Routledge.
Foucault, Michel. 2002. Truth and power. In Power: The essential works of Michel Foucault 1954–1984, vol. 3, ed. J.D. Faubion. London: Penguin Books.
Frontier Economics. 2009. Assessing the impact of science centres in England. London: Frontier Economics Ltd.
Goldschmidt, Rüdiger, and Ortwin Renn. 2006. Meeting of minds—European citizens’ deliberation on brain sciences: Final report of the external evaluation 2006. Available from http://elib.uni-stuttgart.de/opus/volltexte/2007/3031/pdf/AB05_GoldschmidtRenn_EvaluationReport.pdf.
Goodin, Robert E. 2008. Innovating democracy: democratic theory and practice after the deliberative turn. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Gross, Alan. 1994. The roles of rhetoric in the public understanding of science. Public Understanding of Science 3(1): 3–23.
Habermas, Jürgen. 1970. The scientization of politics and public opinion. In Toward a rational society, ed. J. Shapiro. Boston: Beacon Press.
Habermas, Jürgen. 1992. Further reflections on the public sphere. In Habermas and the public sphere, ed. C. Calhoun. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Habermas, Jürgen. 1996. Between facts and norms (trans: Rehg, W.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Hagendijk, Rob, and Alan Irwin. 2006. Public deliberation and governance: Engaging with science and technology in contemporary Europe. Minerva 44(2): 167–184.
Hendriks, Carolyn M. 2006. When the forum meets interest politics: Strategic uses of public deliberation. Politics and Society 34(4): 571–602.
HM Government in consultation with the Devolved Administrations 2005. The Government’s outline programme for public engagement on nanotechnologies [cited 23 Nov 2010]. Available from http://www.bis.gov.uk/files/file27705.pdf.
HM Treasury, and DIUS 2007. Science and innovation investment framework 2004–2014, Annual Report 2007, [cited 23 Nov 2007]. Available from http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.berr.gov.uk/files/file40538.pdf.
Holliman, R., R. Collins, E. Jensen, and P. Taylor. 2009. Isotope: Final report of the NESTA-funded project. Milton Keynes: The Open University.
House of Commons 2007. The governance of Britain (presented to Parliament by Secretary of State for Justice and Lord Chancellor). HMSO 2007. Available from http://www.official-documents.gov.uk/document/cm71/7170/7170.pdf.
Irwin, Alan. 2001. Constructing the scientific citizen: Science and democracy in the biosciences. Public Understanding of Science 10(1): 1–18.
Irwin, Alan. 2006. The politics of talk: Coming to terms with the ‘new’ scientific governance. Social Studies of Science 36(2): 299–320.
Irwin, Alan, and Brian Wynne. 1996. Introduction. In Misunderstanding science? The public reconstruction of science, eds. A. Irwin, and B. Wynne. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Jasanoff, Sheila. 2003. Technologies of humility: Citizen participation in governing science. Minerva 41(3): 223–244.
Jasanoff, Sheila. 2005. Designs on nature. Science and democracy in Europe and the United States. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Kelly, Janet. 2000. Rethinking the elementary science methods course: A case for content, pedagogy and informal science education. International Journal of Science Education 22(7): 755–777.
Kerr, Anne, Sarah Cunningham-Burley, and Richard Tutton. 2007. Shifting subject positions: Experts and lay people in public dialogue. Social Studies of Science 37(3): 385–411.
Kitcher, Philip. 2001. Science, truth and democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Knorr-Cetina, Karin. 1999. Epistemic cultures: How the sciences make knowledge. Harvard: Harvard College.
Lehr, Jane. 2007. Democracy, scientific literacy and values in science education in the United States. In The re-emergence of values in science education, eds. D. Corrigan, J. Dillon, and R. Gunstone. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
Lengwiler, Martin. 2008. Participatory approaches in science and technology. Science, Technology and Human Values 33(2): 186–200.
Logan, Robert A. 2001. Science mass communication: Its conceptual history. Science Communication 23(2): 135–163.
Longino, Helen. 1990. Science as social knowledge. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
McNeil, Maureen. 2007. Feminist cultural studies of science and technology. Abingdon and New York: Routledge.
Mesure, S. 2007. The CreScENDO project: Final Report. (Creative Science Engagement Networking, Development and Organisation—Commissioned by NESTA (National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts); unpublished.
Michael, Mike. 2002. Comprehension, apprehension, prehension: Heterogeneity and the public understanding of science. Science, Technology and Human Values 27(3): 357–378.
Miller, Steve. 2001. Public understanding of science at the crossroads. Public Understanding of Science 10(1): 115–120.
Negri, Antonio. 2009. Insurgencies: Constituent power and the modern state, 2nd Revised ed. Minnesota: University of Minnesota Press.
Nelkin, Dorothy. 1977. Technological decisions and democracy: European experiments in public participation. London: Sage.
Norris, Stepehen P. 1998. Intellectual independence for non-scientists and other content-transcendent goals of science education. Science Education 81(2): 239–258.
Norris, Christopher. 2005. Epistemology. London & New York: Continuum.
Nowotny, Helga, Peter Scott, and Michael Gibbons. 2001. Re-thinking science. Knowledge and the public in an age of uncertainty. Oxford and Malden: Policy Press.
Nowotny, Helga, Peter Scott, and Michael Gibbons. 2003. Introduction: ‘Mode 2’ revisited: the new production of knowledge. Minerva 41(3): 179–194.
OST 2003. The forward look: Government funded science, engineering & technology (Report by the Office of Science & Technology) 2003 [cited 15 Apr 2010]. Available from http://www.berr.gov.uk/files/file30223.pdf.
Parkinson, John. 2006. Deliberating in the real world: Problems of legitimacy in deliberative democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Pedretti, Erminia G. 2004. Perspectives on learning through research on critical issues-based science center exhibitions. Science Education 88(Suppl. 1): S34–S47.
Pedretti, Erminia G. 2007. Challenging convention and communicating controversy: Learning through issues-based museum exhibitions. In In principle, in practice: Museums as learning institutions, eds. J. Falk, L. Dierking, and S. Foutz. New York: AltaMira Press.
Popper, Karl. 2002. The logic of scientific discovery. London: Routledge.
POST 2006. Debating science 2006 [cited 15 Apr 2010]. Available from http://www.parliament.uk/documents/upload/postpn260.pdf.
PSCST 2000. Science and society [cited 22 July 2009]. Available from http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/ld199900/ldselect/ldsctech/38/3802.htm.
Rancière, Jacques. 1991. The ignorant schoolmaster. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Rancière, Jacques. 1995. On the shores of politics. London and New York: Verso.
Rancière, Jacques. 2004. Introducing disagreement. Angelaki 9(3): 3–9.
Rancière, Jacques. 2006. Democracy, republic, representation. Constellations 13(3): 297–307.
Rancière, Jacques. 2007. Hatred of democracy. London: Verso.
Rancière, Jacques. 2010. Dissensus: On politics and aesthetics. London and New York: Continuum.
RCUK 2008. Beacons for public engagement: Bridging the gap between higher education and the public 2008 [cited 15 Apr 2010]. Available from http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/cmsweb/downloads/rcuk/scisoc/beaconslaunch.pdf.
Rowe, Gene, Tom Horlick-Jones, John Walls, and Nick Pidgeon. 2005. Difficulties in evaluating public engagement initiatives: reflections on an evaluation of the UK GM Nation? Public debate about transgenic crops. Public Understanding of Science 14(4): 331–352.
Royal Society 2004. Nanoscience and nanotechnologies: Opportunities and uncertainties. London: The Royal Society.
Royal Society 2006. Science and the public interest: communicating the results of new scientific research to the public 2006 [cited 15 Apr 2010]. Available from http://royalsociety.org/Science-and-the-public-interest-communicating-the-results-of-new-scientific-research-to-the-public/.
Schmitter, Philippe. 1999. The future of democracy: Could it be a matter of scale? Social Research 66(3): 933–958.
Smith, Rogers M. 1997. Civic ideals: Conflicting visions of citizenship in US history. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Snively, Gloria, and John Consiglia. 2001. Discovering indigenous science: Implications for science education. Science Education 85(1): 6–34.
Stengers, Isabelle. 2000. Another look: Relearning to laugh. Hypatia: Journal of Feminist Philosophy 15(4): 41–54.
Stewart, Angus. 2002. Hope and despair: Making sense of politics in the twenty-first century. British Journal of Sociology 53(3): 467–490.
Stirling, Andy. 2008. “Opening up” and “closing down”: power, participation and pluralism in the social appraisal of technology. Science, Technology and Human Values 33(2): 262–294.
Sturgis, Patrick, and Nick Allum. 2004. Science in society: Re-evaluating the deficit model of public attitudes. Public Understanding of Science 13(1): 55–74.
The GM science review panel. 2004. GM science review .Second report [cited 23 Nov 2010]. Available from http://www.bis.gov.uk/files/file14992.pdf
Tlili, Anwar, Alan Cribb, and Sharon Gewirtz. 2006. What becomes of science in a science centre? Reconfiguring science for public consumption. Review of Education, Pedagogy and Cultural Studies 28(3): 203–228.
Trench, Brian. 2008. Towards an analytical framework of science communication models. In Communicating science in social contexts, eds. D. Cheng, M. Claessens, T. Gascoigne, J. Metcalfe, B. Schiele, and S. Shi. London: Springer.
Wagner, Wolfgang. 2007. Vernacular science knowledge: Its role in everyday life communication. Public Understanding of Science 16(7): 7–22.
Weber, Max. 1978. Economy and society (trans: Fischoff, E. et al.), eds. Roth, G., and Wittich, C., Vol. 1. New York: Bedminster Press.
Weber, Max. 2004. The essential Weber. ed Whimster, S. London: Routledge.
Weigold, Michael F. 2001. Communicating science: A review of the literature. Science Communication 23(2): 164–193.
Wilsdon, James, and Rebecca Willis. 2004. See-through science: Why public engagement needs to move upstream. London: Demos.
Woolgar, Steve. 1991. The turn to technology in social studies of science. Science, Technology and Human Values 16(1): 20–50.
Wright, Susan. 2008. Governance as a regime of discipline. In Exploring regimes of discipline, ed. N. Dyck. Oxford: Berghahn Books.
Wynne, Brian. 2006. Public engagement as a means of restoring public trust in science—hitting the notes but missing the music? Community Genetics 9(3): 211–220.
Acknowledgments
The work that has gone into this paper has been supported by two separate grants, both of which were from the UK’s Economic and Social Science Research Council (ESRC), for which we are very grateful: Anwar Tlili was awarded a research grant in 2007 under the First Grants Scheme (grant reference: RES-061-25-0039); Emily Dawson’s contribution arises from her ongoing doctoral research which is funded through the Scholarship she obtained in 2008 under the Quota Studentship Scheme (award reference: ES/G018448/1).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Tlili, A., Dawson, E. Mediating Science and Society in the EU and UK: From Information-Transmission to Deliberative Democracy?. Minerva 48, 429–461 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11024-010-9160-0
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11024-010-9160-0