Steve Rayner responds to Steve Miller

The early twentieth-century philosopher and sociologist Alfred Schutz coined the phrase ‘reciprocity of perspectives’ to describe the common assumption among parties to a conversation that they share at least some basic common understanding of what is being said. Professor Miller’s reflections on my informal address to the ESRC-sponsored reception at the BA Science Communication Conference may be a timely reminder that this assumption is frequently misplaced.

Straw man
I find it hard to identify myself with Professor Miller’s somewhat sniffy caricature of my remarks, none of which was intended to ‘drive a wedge between the “thinkers” and the “doers”’ (having myself spent a considerable slice of my life as a doer on behalf of the US Department of Energy). I am particularly puzzled as to why he identifies me with a fanciful argument about ‘a deficit of social science knowledge among science communicators’, which I simply did not make. Setting up a straw man to knock down hardly seems to exemplify best communication practice, which, ironically, was one of the issues that I addressed in my talk.
Indeed, my starting point was the overwhelmingly positive observation that nothing in the six-year long ESRC Science in Society Research Programme justified the fears, frequently expressed at the highest levels of our government, that Britain is in the grips of anything resembling an ‘anti-science’ or ‘anti-innovation’ culture.
Along the same lines, my description of the three versions of the deficit model of science communication that have emerged over the past couple of decades was intended to challenge a particular view of science communication that sees it as a solution to what appears to be a non-existent problem – that of an imagined pervasive public attitude of hostility to science. Survey results repeatedly show that science and technology are immensely popular in Britain and its practitioners enjoy public esteem that should be the envy of civil servants or cabinet ministers. The idea of a general crisis of public confidence in science and technology fed by an anti-science culture turns out to have been something of another straw man.

Governance not communication
I went on to argue that in cases of public concern about specific issues or technologies, such as GM crops, science communication has demonstrably not assuaged that concern because its roots usually lie in issues of governance – not of information. Therefore, more science communication cannot be the solution to such problems.
In fact, some research in the USA suggests that higher levels of public understanding of science are associated with increased concerns about its impacts and governance. In light of these insights, it is reasonable to ask whether an emphasis on science communication may even serve to distract attention from the necessity of both political engagement and reform of the institutions responsible for both science in governance and the governance of science.
The ESRC Science in Society Programme has been careful to distinguish between science communication and public engagement in governance, which was explored in another strand of the programme. Professor Miller appears to conflate the two when he asks, ‘Does it [science communication] have a future, or should those involved in public engagement and information pack up their bags?’

No despair
Of course, communicating science and information about science are vital activities in a modern technological society, hence the ESRC programme’s keen interest in exploring what we call popular ‘science connoisseurship’.1 In my remarks I drew attention to eight research projects that the programme supported under the heading of ‘novel modes of science communication’.
These focused on topics as varied as how zoos and science museums communicate science to visitors; how technical experts, local government and members of the public communicate with each other in pursuit of local air quality improvements; how venture capitalists obtain information about cutting-edge science and technology; and how the public perceives scientific and technological risk.
Far from driving a wedge between researchers and practioners, all of these projects draw on the experience of practitioners and provide fertile insights of practical benefit to those actually engaged in the communication of science in everyday practice. Admittedly this research doesn’t offer much ammunition for arm-wavers complaining about anti-science culture, but it is a far cry from the straw man ‘counsel of despair’ that Professor Miller attributes to me.

1. P. Healey (2004), Scientific connoisseurs and other intermediaries: mavens, pundits and critics. Report of an ESRC Science in Society Workshop. ESRC Science in Society Programme, Oxford

Steve Rayner is James Martin Professor of Science and Civilization at the University of Oxford and Director of the ESRC Science in Society Programme