Public engagement is seriously on the agenda. The new system of Beacons is the largest initiative ever launched to support it throughout the UK. Funded by the UK higher education funding councils and Research Councils UK, the Beacons’ goal is to achieve a more joined-up and embedded approach to public engagement. The six Beacons will be coordinated by a centre in Bristol.

In this issue of SPA, all the Beacons lay out their plans and receive an enthusiastic welcome from Andrea Cornwall: ‘Passion, curiosity, creativity, dynamism, imagination... exciting words for an inspiring project.’ She hopes they will mean the end of what has often passed for public involvement, dubbed, she says, by one resident on a south London estate as the Mushroom Syndrome: ‘Keep ‘em in the dark, and feed ‘em on sh*t’.

It is not only the Beacons which are giving public engagement a higher UK profile. Science Minister Ian Pearson has set out his vision for science and society. While welcoming his speech, Alan Irwin spells out some of the questions he thinks it raises: the difference, for example, between ‘enthusing’ the public about science and ‘engaging’ the public with science. He hopes the minister will encourage ‘critical and open reflection about precisely how to bring meaning to public engagement exercises.’

One form of engagement is based in science centres across the country. They attract millions of people each year to discover science, to listen to scientists talk about their research, to monitor public attitudes, and more. Yet they are struggling to survive. Penny Fidler extols their strengths and looks forward to research the government has promised to commission to establish their effectiveness.

Two pieces in this issue describe different techniques to make engagement more effective. David Lerner relates how Sheffield people are shaping the future of the River Don. His project is using sensitive methods to enable quiet voices to be heard. As one researcher explained: ‘It is often better to get a small group to do a fun task, like building a model of their ideal river bank, and then use the conversations while building the model to help understand what people really want.’ 

Probing discussion is the technique Brian Rappert describes to enable biologists to think about security implications of their work. He and a colleague have conducted seminars with biologists in many different countries. Their goal is to get scientists interacting with policy makers to initiate new policies that foster mutual appreciation and are geared to practical action.

Meanwhile, in the United States, John Durant is experiencing a very different culture at the MIT Museum. He points out that there are ‘many, very different, often culturally specific, sometimes painfully contrasting forms of public engagement with science,’ and asks for more understanding of the cultural influence on the way they engage.

In answer to our reader survey about the magazine, some of you said you would like to see more correspondence from other readers. So would I! If you would like to enjoy more readers’ letters, please write in yourself. We are always delighted to hear from you.  

Wendy Barnaby, Editor

Do you wish to comment on something you have read in Science & Public Affairs?
Email your letters to the Editor

Find out how you can join the BA's free network of supporters

A printable version of Science & Public Affairs is available here (PDF 741KB)