Science Express
Enjoyable triad: expression, perception & public communication of science.
Rocío Ramírez Paulino
Introduction
Each day we face the challenging advance of scientific and technological knowledge, with the increasing complexity of the universe they comprise.
How do we handle so many novelties and new modes of survival? We lack time and even media to get to know for example, the origin and quality of the products we consume. Besides, we are confronted to a great mass of information of different type, source and quality that many times show uncertainties -as science itself, - are contradictory or even wrong (1).
Science in the media is increasing (above all subjects related to biomedicine.) (2) But though information flux is really intense, it has worrying contradictions.
Public perception of science is controversial. Many people are unaware of basic scientific notions (even directly related to its daily life) but see with good eyes the scientific careers; meanwhile their activity generate fears, false rumours and at the same time, enormous expectations to a life quality improvement (3).
General public is interested in science and demand more and better information; yet they consume few contents compared to others that- by feedback- have protagonist roles on TV, radio, newspapers or even the web (3)(4).
Science is perceived as a complex kind of knowledge, and citizens face the need of adopting views and taking decisions without knowing the science behind or having enough understanding of new laws and regulations.
This controversy leads to the question of "trusting the media" besides our critique capacity. This is harder now, even for those with a good educational background. We live in a kind of “wild communication era” which is not contributing to solve the epistemological gaps in the public understanding of science. This is a great debate (see for e.g. (11).
It's a social debt to set up strategies to filter the amusing mass of information and elaborate scientific communication policies that bear this problem in mind. The crucial task really, is to increase citizen’s ability to form critical points of view (specially managing trust in sources) in a frame of social awareness.
The Point
Social construction of science has emerged and evolved in a cultural, political and economic context and the way in which science is mostly transmitted to the public reinforces previous concepts.
Taking the example of exhibitions, Gregory J. Schneider points out that (6) "[…] the mode of display highlights the science that undergirds the thematic science content typically presented.”
More than ever we have to consider this fact from the basis. What is science, how does it work, and which limits -and risks- does it have? Each person has his own vision and should be able to think of examples of what science is and what is not. But even scientist don't think equally about this; in fact, we might find many scientist, science teachers, leaders and policy makers that have barely thought about this issue.
It is worth mentioning we are not even considering the actual problem of "bad science" that is not only done in laboratories, but also transmitted -sometimes even without scruples- to the public as final truths (5).
Vision
We adhere and extend Schneider's rhetorical challenge: to achieve a way of conveying scientific knowledge (and its epistemological claims) within and historical process, and to present the complexity of the scientific enterprise as an object of knowledge itself.
Before any direct science communication practice (classes, workshops, conferences, hands-on experiences), there should be a reflective introduction to what science is, no matter the format or the length, and a minimal introduction to the philosophy of science. In the case of indirect communicational practices (didactic materials, books and magazines, exhibitions) the texts, images and overall display should carry this questioning message.
By reconsidering the basis, people are encouraged to revise their own visions and concepts, and to the reflect on the social construction of science and the responsibility it has in producing and reproducing scientific culture, social awareness and responsibility.
Precedents and Proposal at PCST
How can we tackle the need to go back to the basis? Fortunately, some public engagement practices seek this goal. Some have focus on children. E.g. they have to make some drawings (7) (8), reply questions or tell a story. In general they have to draw a scientist in order to see their vision of them. Others combine ideas, also with children (9.) This could and should be done for all ages and professions.
Artistic expression is used to attract the public and show science complexity in exhibitions, as in this take-away photographic exhibition of GM tomatoes (10) aiming to demystify the process of genetic modification, and clarify the debate about this controversial subject.
Art and science are making great contact nowadays. It’s an “emotion generating mix”, so we focus on the messages it can and sometimes should give.
Emotion-based approaches usually confront the public with fascinating objects and phenomena in order to achieve (through interaction -or conversation-) (4) the desired response. This is really worthy and able to produce good results. However, it leaves behind the previous notions, possible misconceptions and individual associations people may have.
To what extent does emotional messages reaches the public, in which way? Top-down stimulation is not enough if we want to inquire social perceptions of science and bring awareness about the real feelings of the receptor. There is plenty of groundwork for how the public conceives not only the scientific ideas, but science itself.
Here I refer to past activities in which we used emotion in a different way: to move the public, awake its interest and provoke reflection; first, about what science is, and second, about what do they have in mind when some scientific topics are just named (climate change, stem cells, nanotechnology, GM crops, synthetic life, etc).
Have their ever thought about this?
We wonder if it can give a funded response. Which ideas do they associate with science and why? Are they able to express their ideas?
The mission is then, to use the emotional approach the other way round and appeal to different forms of expression to arise the sleepy “knowledge seeking instinct” and vital expression -about nature and its phenomena- we all have.
In this way we expect to get a broad outline about (and possibly identify) the concepts and personal visions public may have about science and controversial scientific topic.
Main objectives of our approach
. Promote a personal questioning of science notion within the increasing complexity of scientific and technological knowledge.
. Boost reflection and encourage the challenge of individual expression, experimenting with our perceptions and getting to know more about the world and the circumstances that surround us.
. Identify (and register) possible pre conceptions and wrong notions about science and science topics, and determine which aspects can be improved, what points should be taken into account in their communication.
Glance at past/future activities done in science classes, conferences, etc.
Plastic and literary expression workshop: What is science?
Proposal: "Give us a drawing or a word. Don't think it! Just express."
This has been done on a big sheet of paper (e.g. on a clipboard) also on separate shared out papers, or a booklet.
Audio - recording workshop - Science is... “Say one word. Don't think it! Just express."
Her we record the first word that comes to people's mind.
Evaluation
The final step is prompting an evaluation debate by the attendees and if possible, science communication professionals. Guiding questions:
1 ¿How did you feel with the proposal?
2 ¿Do you think it is a good way of revealing “hidden” concepts or ideas associated with science?
3 ¿Does the fact of knowing, sampling and recording these previous concepts and images help improving public science communication? In which way?
References
(1) Eurobarómetro 69
(3) Vladimir de Semir. Meta Análisis: Comunicación Científica y Periodismo científico. Observatorio de la Comunicación Científica Universidad Pompeu Fabra (Barcelona, España), Fundación Española para la Ciencia y la Tecnología, FECYT. 2011.
(11) Cultural Cognition Project. Yale, Law School.
Accessed May, 12.12
