Minerva

, Volume 48, Issue 4, pp 429–461 | Cite as

Mediating Science and Society in the EU and UK: From Information-Transmission to Deliberative Democracy?

Article

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.

Keywords

Deliberative democracy Public engagement with science and technology (PEST) Public understanding of science (PUS) Science communication Governance of science Pedagogy Information-transmission 

Notes

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).

References

  1. Aikenhead, Glen S. 1996. Science education: Border crossing into the subculture of science. Studies in Science Education 27(1): 1–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderson, Benedict. 1991. Imagined communities. London: Verso.Google Scholar
  3. 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.
  4. Bachelard, Gaston. 2001. The formation of the scientific mind. Manchester: Clinamen Press Ltd.Google Scholar
  5. Badiou, Alain. 2006. Metapolitics. London: Verso.Google Scholar
  6. Balibar, Étienne. 2004. We, the people of Europe? Princeton & Oxford: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  7. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Barber, Benjamin. 1984. Strong democracy: Participatory politics for a new age. Berkeley, Los Angeles & London: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  9. Barnes, Barry, David Bloor, and John Henry. 1996. Scientific knowledge: A sociological analysis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  10. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Beck, Ulrich. 1992. Risk society: Towards a new modernity (trans: Ritter, M.). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  13. Bensaude-Vincent, Bernadette. 2001. A genealogy of the increasing gap between science and the public. Public Understanding of Science 10(1): 99–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Bernstein, Basil. 2000. Pedagogy, symbolic control and identity. New York and Oxford: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
  15. 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.
  16. Bodmer, Walter F. 1986. The public understanding of science. London: Birkbeck College.Google Scholar
  17. Bourdieu, Pierre. 2004. Science of science and reflexivity. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
  18. Burchill, Kevin. 2007. UK governmental public dialogue on science and technology, 19982007: Consistency, hybridity and boundary work. In Paper presented to STEG group at King’s College London.Google Scholar
  19. Burchill, Kevin, Sarah Franklin, and Kerry Holden. 2009. Public culture and professional science. London: BIOS.Google Scholar
  20. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Collins, Harry, and Trevor Pinch. 1998. The golem. What you should know about science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Council of the European Union. 2000. Conclusions of the Lisbon European Council. Council of the European Union SN 100/00: 23–24 Mar 2000.Google Scholar
  23. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. De Greiff, Pablo. 2000. Deliberative democracy and group representation. Social Theory and Practice 26(3): 397–415.Google Scholar
  25. Deleuze, Gilles, and Félix Guattari. 2004. A thousand plateaus. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
  26. 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.
  27. Dryzek, John. 2000. Deliberative democracy and beyond: liberals, critics, contestations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  28. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 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.
  30. 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.
  31. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 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.Google Scholar
  33. 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.Google Scholar
  34. Frontier Economics. 2009. Assessing the impact of science centres in England. London: Frontier Economics Ltd.Google Scholar
  35. Goldschmidt, Rüdiger, and Ortwin Renn. 2006. Meeting of mindsEuropean 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.
  36. Goodin, Robert E. 2008. Innovating democracy: democratic theory and practice after the deliberative turn. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Gross, Alan. 1994. The roles of rhetoric in the public understanding of science. Public Understanding of Science 3(1): 3–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Habermas, Jürgen. 1970. The scientization of politics and public opinion. In Toward a rational society, ed. J. Shapiro. Boston: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
  39. Habermas, Jürgen. 1992. Further reflections on the public sphere. In Habermas and the public sphere, ed. C. Calhoun. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  40. Habermas, Jürgen. 1996. Between facts and norms (trans: Rehg, W.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  41. Hagendijk, Rob, and Alan Irwin. 2006. Public deliberation and governance: Engaging with science and technology in contemporary Europe. Minerva 44(2): 167–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Hendriks, Carolyn M. 2006. When the forum meets interest politics: Strategic uses of public deliberation. Politics and Society 34(4): 571–602.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 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.
  44. HM Treasury, and DIUS 2007. Science and innovation investment framework 20042014, Annual Report 2007, [cited 23 Nov 2007]. Available from http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.berr.gov.uk/files/file40538.pdf.
  45. Holliman, R., R. Collins, E. Jensen, and P. Taylor. 2009. Isotope: Final report of the NESTA-funded project. Milton Keynes: The Open University.Google Scholar
  46. 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.
  47. Irwin, Alan. 2001. Constructing the scientific citizen: Science and democracy in the biosciences. Public Understanding of Science 10(1): 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Irwin, Alan. 2006. The politics of talk: Coming to terms with the ‘new’ scientific governance. Social Studies of Science 36(2): 299–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Jasanoff, Sheila. 2003. Technologies of humility: Citizen participation in governing science. Minerva 41(3): 223–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Jasanoff, Sheila. 2005. Designs on nature. Science and democracy in Europe and the United States. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  52. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Kitcher, Philip. 2001. Science, truth and democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Knorr-Cetina, Karin. 1999. Epistemic cultures: How the sciences make knowledge. Harvard: Harvard College.Google Scholar
  56. 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.Google Scholar
  57. Lengwiler, Martin. 2008. Participatory approaches in science and technology. Science, Technology and Human Values 33(2): 186–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Logan, Robert A. 2001. Science mass communication: Its conceptual history. Science Communication 23(2): 135–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Longino, Helen. 1990. Science as social knowledge. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  60. McNeil, Maureen. 2007. Feminist cultural studies of science and technology. Abingdon and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  61. 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.Google Scholar
  62. Michael, Mike. 2002. Comprehension, apprehension, prehension: Heterogeneity and the public understanding of science. Science, Technology and Human Values 27(3): 357–378.Google Scholar
  63. Miller, Steve. 2001. Public understanding of science at the crossroads. Public Understanding of Science 10(1): 115–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Negri, Antonio. 2009. Insurgencies: Constituent power and the modern state, 2nd Revised ed. Minnesota: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  65. Nelkin, Dorothy. 1977. Technological decisions and democracy: European experiments in public participation. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  66. Norris, Stepehen P. 1998. Intellectual independence for non-scientists and other content-transcendent goals of science education. Science Education 81(2): 239–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Norris, Christopher. 2005. Epistemology. London & New York: Continuum.Google Scholar
  68. 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.Google Scholar
  69. Nowotny, Helga, Peter Scott, and Michael Gibbons. 2003. Introduction: ‘Mode 2’ revisited: the new production of knowledge. Minerva 41(3): 179–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 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.
  71. Parkinson, John. 2006. Deliberating in the real world: Problems of legitimacy in deliberative democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  72. Pedretti, Erminia G. 2004. Perspectives on learning through research on critical issues-based science center exhibitions. Science Education 88(Suppl. 1): S34–S47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 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.Google Scholar
  74. Popper, Karl. 2002. The logic of scientific discovery. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  75. POST 2006. Debating science 2006 [cited 15 Apr 2010]. Available from http://www.parliament.uk/documents/upload/postpn260.pdf.
  76. 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.
  77. Rancière, Jacques. 1991. The ignorant schoolmaster. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  78. Rancière, Jacques. 1995. On the shores of politics. London and New York: Verso.Google Scholar
  79. Rancière, Jacques. 2004. Introducing disagreement. Angelaki 9(3): 3–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Rancière, Jacques. 2006. Democracy, republic, representation. Constellations 13(3): 297–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Rancière, Jacques. 2007. Hatred of democracy. London: Verso.Google Scholar
  82. Rancière, Jacques. 2010. Dissensus: On politics and aesthetics. London and New York: Continuum.Google Scholar
  83. 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.
  84. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Royal Society 2004. Nanoscience and nanotechnologies: Opportunities and uncertainties. London: The Royal Society.Google Scholar
  86. 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/.
  87. Schmitter, Philippe. 1999. The future of democracy: Could it be a matter of scale? Social Research 66(3): 933–958.Google Scholar
  88. Smith, Rogers M. 1997. Civic ideals: Conflicting visions of citizenship in US history. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  89. Snively, Gloria, and John Consiglia. 2001. Discovering indigenous science: Implications for science education. Science Education 85(1): 6–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Stengers, Isabelle. 2000. Another look: Relearning to laugh. Hypatia: Journal of Feminist Philosophy 15(4): 41–54.Google Scholar
  91. Stewart, Angus. 2002. Hope and despair: Making sense of politics in the twenty-first century. British Journal of Sociology 53(3): 467–490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. 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
  95. 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.Google Scholar
  96. 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.Google Scholar
  97. Wagner, Wolfgang. 2007. Vernacular science knowledge: Its role in everyday life communication. Public Understanding of Science 16(7): 7–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Weber, Max. 1978. Economy and society (trans: Fischoff, E. et al.), eds. Roth, G., and Wittich, C., Vol. 1. New York: Bedminster Press.Google Scholar
  99. Weber, Max. 2004. The essential Weber. ed Whimster, S. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  100. Weigold, Michael F. 2001. Communicating science: A review of the literature. Science Communication 23(2): 164–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Wilsdon, James, and Rebecca Willis. 2004. See-through science: Why public engagement needs to move upstream. London: Demos.Google Scholar
  102. Woolgar, Steve. 1991. The turn to technology in social studies of science. Science, Technology and Human Values 16(1): 20–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. Wright, Susan. 2008. Governance as a regime of discipline. In Exploring regimes of discipline, ed. N. Dyck. Oxford: Berghahn Books.Google Scholar
  104. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Education and Professional StudiesKing’s College LondonLondonUK

Personalised recommendations