Public Engagement

In October 2006, Alan I. Leshner wrote an article for the Chronicle of Higher Education on "Science and Public Engagement", which I've used to title today's blog. Leshner, who is chief executive officer of the American Association for the Advancement of Science and executive publisher of Science, is deeply involved in issues of the public understanding of science.

Leshner argues, in a way that I find convincing,

Many scientists argue that the solution to the tension between science and society is to increase public understanding of science. But the problem is not simply a lack of comprehension. The case of stem-cell research is instructive: It is not that opponents do not understand somatic-cell nuclear transfer; they do grasp the fundamental nature of the process, and they don't like it. The notion of destroying an embryo, no matter how noble the cause, conflicts with their core religious beliefs about when life begins, and its sanctity. More education would not be enough. (Chronicle)

He goes on to say "Instead of simply increasing public understanding of science, scientists need to have a real dialogue with members of the public, listening to their concerns, their priorities, and the questions they would like us to help answer." He articulates some important points about how to have such a dialog. (I list just summary phrases; you should read the whole thing.)

• Never pit science against religion.
• Never debate a known ideologue.
• Protect the integrity of science.
• Be very clear about the nature of science, what it can and can't do.
• Frame global scientific issues in a local context.
• Stop expecting people to come to us at our universities or conferences. Meet them on their turf.
• Work with small groups for true interaction.
• Listen. "The most important — and most difficult — lesson to learn is that public engagement involves genuine dialogue, which means both parties must listen and be willing to modify their own positions."

In January of this year, Leshner followed up with an article in Science entitled "Outreach Training Needed", where he takes the idea further. He points out that "engaging the public effectively is an acquired skill, and preparation for outreach strategies has seldom been part of scientific training programs", and proposes two necessary steps.

First, the reward structure of academia needs to be modified. Academic institutions need to support engagement efforts by "putting public outreach efforts among the metrics used to decide promotion and tenure" and funding agencies should expect such efforts to be intergral parts of research proposals.

Second, graduate student and postdoc educational programs should include training in communicating with public audiences, which is different from communicating with students or scientific peers.

This communication needs to be a genuine two-way dialog. As Lesher concludes his editorial,

This will doubtless be an additional burden on existing systems. Unfortunately, there is no alternative. If science is going to fully serve its societal mission in the future, we need to both encourage and equip the next generation of scientists to effectively engage with the broader society in which we work and live.