The Evolving Context for Science-Society Dialogues University Pompeu Fabra March 6, 2006

The Evolving Context for Science-Society Dialogues

University Pompeu Fabra

March 6, 2006

The Evolving Context for Science-Society DialoguesUniversity Pompeu Fabra, March 6, 2006

2

The overall societal context for science is set by

Issues within science itself

Government regulations, priorities and funding

How the public relates to science


3

Within science….


4

Advances in science are coming at a very rapid pace

And society is pleased by that


5

Advances in science are coming at a very rapid pace, in part because

“Big science” has spread into new fields

Increasing inter-dependency of sciences

Advances in science are being fueled by advances in technology


6

The life sciences have begun doing “big science” projects


7

Genomes Proteomes


8

Advanced technologies are enabling

New kinds of science

New questions

New understanding


9

L. Chang, M.D., T. Ernst, Ph.D., O. Speck, Ph.D.Harbor-UCLA Medical CenterGenerating words (left brain dominant)

LeftLeft

RightRight

DorsalDorsal

VentralVentralAnteriorAnterior

posteriorposteriorLL

RR

LL

RR

SMASMA

Broca’s areaBroca’s area

Broca’s areaBroca’s area

Parietal CortexParietal Cortex

Functional MRI of a “normal” subject

Chang, et al.


10

At the same time, issues/events within science are damaging the science-society relationship

Incidents of scientific misconduct

Human subjects concerns

Animal welfare issues

Conflict of interest problems

Premature publicity

“Publishing by press release”


11

Government priorities and regulations also affect the context

National security

Stem cells

Global warming


12

The overall societal context for science is set by

Issues within science itself

Government regulations, priorities and funding

How the public relates to science


13

The science-society relationship is changing

Not really evolving – more like re-volving

Becoming more tense


14

People generally still respect science and technology….


15

US public’s view of scientific research

National Science Board, Science and Engineering Indicators - 2002


16

People still respect S&T….

….but not everywhere in the same way or degree

17Source: National Science Board, Science Indicators, 2006)


18

In Europe, the overall view of science has deteriorated:

In 2005, 52% of people felt benefits of science outweighed its risks vs. 61% in 1992

That’s almost 20 percentage points below the US.

Eurobarometer 2005

19


20

The American situation is not as good as it might seem….


21

People don’t really understand what is science and what’s not:

60% of Americans believe in extrasensory perception

41% think astrology is somewhat scientific

47% still do not answer “true” to the statement: “Human beings developed from earlier species of animals”

Science and Engineering Indicators, 2004


22

What do Europeans consider as scientific?

Medicine – 89%

Physics – 83%

Astronomy – 70%

History – 34%

Astrology – 41%

Homeopathy – 33%

Source: Eurobarometer, 2005

23

24Source: Miller, J.D., at AAAS Annual Meeting, 2006


25

“The more we push science forward, the more people believe in magic.”

Norman Hackerman, 2005


26

A new dimension is emerging (or re-emerging) in the science-society relationship….


27

Historically, science and technology have been evaluated primarily on the basis of their costs/risks and benefits


28

Now, values are being overlaid onto “simple” risk/benefit calculations…


29

Historic values-related issues

The earth is round and rotates around the sun

Should scientists work on nuclear weapons?

Vaccination

Recombinant DNA


30

Current values-related scientific issues

Cloning and stem cells

Studying “personal” topics

Sex

Genetics of behavior

Aggression

Cognition/intelligence

Teaching “intelligent design” in science classrooms

Fundamentally an anti-evolution movement


31

Intelligent design claims to believe in gradual change

But a supernatural being guided the process

Claims to be a scientific alternative to evolution


32

“Intelligent design” issue is extremely complex

Not about whether to teach it in school at all

Do need to separate teaching about religion from just teaching (or preaching) religion

Is about whether to teach it in science classrooms

No science base

Children need to know what is and is not science


33

US science teachers feel great pressure around teaching of evolution in science classes

31% feel pressured to include creationism, intelligent design or other nonscientific alternatives to evolution

30% feel pushed to de-emphasize or omit evolution

Mostly from parents and students, not school administrators

Source: National Science Teachers Association, 2005


34

“You have to admit that evolution theory is not complete.”

Dutch Education Minister, Maria Van der Hoeven, 2005

Not just an American issue:


35

Advocates argue “teach both theories”


36


37

There are science-faith issues in Europe, too


38

Science and Faith in Europe

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Percent

Science makes our wayof life change too fast

We depend too much onscience and not enough

on faith

It is not important toknow about science in

my daily life

Agree

Disagree

Neither agree nordisagree

Source: Eurobarometer, 2005


39

Overlay of values is having serious consequences for the whole science-society relationship

Society wants to influence science

Rather than just the reverse

Creating a growing divide between science and the rest of society


40

Causes of the “Great Divide”

Encroachment on values

Misunderstandings about the word “theory”

“Theory” has different meaning to scientists and lay persons

41


42

Causes of the “Great Divide”

Encroachment on/of values

Misunderstandings about the word “theory”

“Theory” has different meaning to scientists and lay persons

Media insistence on presenting “both sides” of every story

Science’s assumption that scientific illiteracy is the major obstacle


43

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Favor Opposed Favor Opposed

Before After

Explaining Concepts Does Help

-- Embryonic Stem Cell Research -- -- Cloning to Make Stem Cells --

Source: Coalition for the Advancement of Medical Research, 2005


44

But we can’t just educate our way out of it

The problem is not just lack of understanding

People do understand much of what we’re saying or want to do

They don’t like it

The conflict with their core values trumps their view of societal benefits


45

…. science is valuable for telling us what we need to know, whether we like the answer or not….

Cong. Rush Holt, AAAS Carey Lecture, 2005


46

What can we do?

Continue protesting/lamenting the situation

The problem is not going to go away

“Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different outcome”


47

What can we do?

Continue protesting/lamenting the situation

“Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different outcome”

Engage with the public on the issue

Try to find common ground


48

What to do?


49

What not to do: the traditional approach

A large forum dominated by extreme advocates on both sides

Beware evangelical atheists!

Never debate an ideologue!

A pontificating jargon-laden lecture by elites

Ruth Wooden, R!A 2004


50

Monologue Dialogue

We need to change the nature of the conversation


51

We need to hear from the public about:

Their concerns about science and technology and their concomitants

Risks and benefits

Encroachment on human values

Their priorities among research areas

Questions they would like or need us to answer

Help frame the research agenda


52

In genetics:

What values and priorities should genetic research and its application seek to uphold?

Where does the public draw the line on an acceptable level of risk?

Kathy Hudson, Research USA, June 30, 2003


53


54

UK attitudes to public engagement: the opportunity

74% of people say they ought to hear about potential new areas of science and technology before they happen

81% say the public should be consulted on decisions about scientific developments

51% would be interested in taking part in a national debate on a science-related issues

79% say that scientists should spend more time discussing the implications of their work in public

75% think scientists should listen more to what ordinary people think

Source: Roland Jackson, British Association, 2005


55

What to do?


56

Go “Glocal”!

Julia Taguena Parga, 2005


57

Work with local opinion setters

Local newspapers

Clergy

School officials

Local government leaders/politicians

58

= “Intelligent design” initiative eruption

= AAAS intervention


59

The Dover trial local op-ed strategy


60

How should scientists behave in this dialogue?

Scientists must stick to the facts

Do not express your personal values

Do not go outside your specific area of expertise

Find easily understood ways to connote your meaning

No jargon, no nuances

Never violate the data

Listen!


61

Be prepared for some skepticism


62

UK attitudes to public engagement: the challenge

59% do not feel informed about science or scientific developments

50% feel that public consultation events are just public relations activities and do not make a difference to policy



63

Some groups are working on it already…

64

The BA’s purpose

To create a positive social climate in which science, and the organisations dependent on it, advances with public consent and with the involvement and active support of non-scientists



65

Formal US dialogues:

NIH/NHGRI’s “Ethical, Legal and Social Implications” (ELSI) Program

AAAS’s Dialogue on Science, Ethics and Religion

Johns Hopkins Univ. Genetics and Public Policy Center


66

AAAS Center for Public Engagement with Science and Technology

Town meetings

Topical public workshops

Partnerships with science museum and centers

Active outreach

Clubs

Lodges

Religious institutions


67


68

We need a global commitment to engagement!


69

We Can Improve the Relationship,

But It Won’t be Easy!

We Can Improve the Relationship,

But It Won’t be Easy!


70

Documents

The Evolving Context for Science-Society Dialogues University Pompeu Fabra March 6, 2006