The legacy of high-profile science-based issues
So far we have briefly considered how developments in technology and the influencing of de-regulation are providing new opportunities for citizens to engage with science. There is another important factor to consider; the legacy of previous high-profile science-based issues, in particular the way they were managed and portrayed in media reports. For example, the emerging scientific understanding surrounding BSE (bovine spongiform encephalopathy), a cattle disease, and vCJD (variant Creutzfeldt–Jakob), a disease in humans.

Science communication, particularly in the form of news media reporting, played an important role in informing members of the public about developments in the BSE/vCJD episode, a situation that is the case for many science-based issues. Indeed, research has consistently shown that once citizens have left formal education media reports are a key informant about new developments in science. It should come as no surprise then that sales of beef reduced significantly in the immediate aftermath of media reports in March 1996 that suggested a link between BSE and vCJD. (Indeed, recent media reports about bird flu have seen similar reductions in sales of chicken.) But were there longer term effects?

Research suggests that the legacy of the BSE/vCJD episode can be characterised in part by a loss of trust in scientists working for the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (now subsumed into Defra) and the food industry. Indeed, one of the main recommendations of the BSE Inquiry was for more openness and transparency in dealing with issues of food safety as a way of increasing levels of trust. As a result the Food Standards Agency, set up in the aftermath of the BSE/vCJD episode, places great emphasis on these ideals. In practice this involves a number of pragmatic measures, for example, providing clearer labelling of foods with the aim of improving consumer choice.

Alongside these calls for greater openness and transparency there have also been calls for the introduction of dialogue and consultation exercises, as a way of engaging citizens in decision making processes. Science in Context considers two examples, the GM Nation? debate and the more recent NanoJury event. Taken together, these examples invite questions about when to conduct deliberative exercises: upstream, when citizens have the greatest chance to influence the aims and objectives of future scientific research, or further downstream, when stakeholders should have a greater awareness of some of the benefits, risks and ethical issues that may be associated with a new area of research and development.

The challenge
Overall, these developments - in technology, increased de-regulation and the legacy of high-profile science-based issues - suggest that the interface between science and society could become more dynamic and engaged, more blurred in terms of the distinction between experts and non-experts, but also more visible. Of course, citizens have always had local expertise that is of value to science and scientific information has influenced the ways we live our lives. Now, however, scientists can exchange their ‘ivory towers’ for online forums facilitating dialogue, engagement and deliberation and pro-ams can extend local networks to engage at a global level.

Does all this sound to good to be true? Certainly, new technologies can extend the opportunities for dialogue and engagement, but this is not without its challenges. For example, the move towards on-demand multi-channel electronic media, such as radio and TV, is likely to provide opportunities for more interactive science-based communication, but with smaller audiences. As a result citizens will have greater choice and motivating citizens to consume science will become an ever important factor. Those with an interest in engaging citizens with science will need to compete with activities other than science; not an easy task.

In addition, ensuring that citizens have access to new technologies and the ability to navigate through them are very real concerns; if you cannot access and use new technologies, as many people in the developing world cannot, then you will be excluded from participating. The danger here is that the gap between information-rich societies, such as the UK (where access and ICT literacy skills are far from universal), and information-poor societies will be maintained and even widened. Deliberating about global issues, such as Climate Change will therefore require methods that engage all citizens and not just those with access to new technologies.

Of course, it is also important to note that to be adopted new technologies need to provide obvious benefits to the users. For citizens in Bangladesh whose water supplies are contaminated with dangerous levels of arsenic, for example, online consultation exercises will look like an unnecessary luxury. These citizens are looking for more immediate pragmatic solutions to this challenge, for example, by painting ‘safe’ wells green and ‘dangerous’ ones red. In this way, new technologies cannot be seen as a panacea for effective science communication.

Summary
This article describes some of the opportunities and challenges for those wishing to communicate science using new technologies. Science in Context (S250) will help you to investigate some of these issues in the context of seven scientific topics. At the same time, it will help you to further develop the information literacy skills that are so important when navigating your way through science communicated in the ‘digital age’.

  < previous   Page 2 of 2