Comments for Science and Society strategy for the UK http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://interactive.bis.gov.uk/scienceandsociety/site A society excited by science, valuing its importance and feeling confident in its use Thu, 17 Dec 2009 10:09:27 +0000 http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 Comment on Science for All Expert Group by Howie Firth http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://interactive.bis.gov.uk/scienceandsociety/site/science-for-all/comment-page-1/#comment-2447 Howie Firth Thu, 17 Dec 2009 10:09:27 +0000 http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://interactive.dius.gov.uk/scienceandsociety/site/?page_id=102#comment-2447 I'm sorry to come back and take more space but in the latest issue of Scientific American (December 2009) there is an article by Lawrence M. Krauss which could well be the most important statement on science communication written this year, and it is vital that anyone interested in the field reads it and digests it. He talks about the extent to which in our so-called information society, utter nonsense can be uttered on a wide scale. This is his closing paragraph: 'What makes people so susceptible to nonsense in public discourse? Is it because we do such a miserable job in schools teaching what science is all about - that it is not a collection of facts or stories but a process for weeding out nonsense to get closer to the underlying beautiful reality of nature? Perhaps not. But I worry for the future of our democracy if a combination of a free press and democratically elected leaders cannot together somehow more effectively defend empirical reality against the onslaught of ideology and fanaticism.' What he says about our educational system is important, and for years the work of Driver et al - who warned that we are teaching science-as-facts rather than science-as-process - has been ignored. But the implications for the general communication of science in society are equally immense. All too often science is portrayed by scientists as a body of doctrine which must be defended by an emphasis on the authority of those who support it rather than by showing how it stands up to challenge. This is the exact opposite of the nature of science which is about challenging everything - the beliefs that we have grown up with and also the challenges to those beliefs. I believe that this authoritarian approach makes science vulnerable to attack from areas like creationism and climate change denial, since it puts science on the same level as them - a body of doctrine which depends on authority - rather than maintaining its hard-won position as an objective process in which we all work together to come closer to the truth, however near or far it may turn out to be from our starting-point. This means that we have to take a totally fresh look at the way in which science and its establishment interacts with society. It is not just about putting across a marketing message, but a fundamental self-analysis of the way in which science has become an establishment. If this committee is to achieve anything worthwhile, it must have a remit to go into fundamental questions. I’m sorry to come back and take more space but in the latest issue of Scientific American (December 2009) there is an article by Lawrence M. Krauss which could well be the most important statement on science communication written this year, and it is vital that anyone interested in the field reads it and digests it.

He talks about the extent to which in our so-called information society, utter nonsense can be uttered on a wide scale. This is his closing paragraph:

‘What makes people so susceptible to nonsense in public discourse? Is it because we do such a miserable job in schools teaching what science is all about – that it is not a collection of facts or stories but a process for weeding out nonsense to get closer to the underlying beautiful reality of nature? Perhaps not. But I worry for the future of our democracy if a combination of a free press and democratically elected leaders cannot together somehow more effectively defend empirical reality against the onslaught of ideology and fanaticism.’

What he says about our educational system is important, and for years the work of Driver et al – who warned that we are teaching science-as-facts rather than science-as-process – has been ignored. But the implications for the general communication of science in society are equally immense. All too often science is portrayed by scientists as a body of doctrine which must be defended by an emphasis on the authority of those who support it rather than by showing how it stands up to challenge. This is the exact opposite of the nature of science which is about challenging everything – the beliefs that we have grown up with and also the challenges to those beliefs. I believe that this authoritarian approach makes science vulnerable to attack from areas like creationism and climate change denial, since it puts science on the same level as them – a body of doctrine which depends on authority – rather than maintaining its hard-won position as an objective process in which we all work together to come closer to the truth, however near or far it may turn out to be from our starting-point.

This means that we have to take a totally fresh look at the way in which science and its establishment interacts with society. It is not just about putting across a marketing message, but a fundamental self-analysis of the way in which science has become an establishment. If this committee is to achieve anything worthwhile, it must have a remit to go into fundamental questions.

]]> Comment on Science for All Expert Group by Howie Firth http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://interactive.bis.gov.uk/scienceandsociety/site/science-for-all/comment-page-1/#comment-2404 Howie Firth Mon, 07 Dec 2009 11:27:57 +0000 http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://interactive.dius.gov.uk/scienceandsociety/site/?page_id=102#comment-2404 Tim's story sums up how much is going wrong with the whole field on what is nothing less than a day of shame for the whole 'public engagement with science' establishment - the day when a Sunday Telegraph poll has shown that very nearly half the population of the UK do not believe that climate change is man-made. After so many government initiatives, with science centres and STEMpoints and STEMnets and goodness knows how many other acronyms, not to mention the earnest endeavours of the British Science Association, the entire impact of the lot over the past twenty years has been negated by half a dozen sceptics with a few press statements. The extent to which the 'educated and engaged' people have taken these statements uncritically is quite remarkable - and is something that has to be recognised and studied. I believe that the situation has actually been made worse by a lot of the 'public engagement of science' initiatives, and by much of the educational system. We teach science as facts, as a body of dogma, in order that pupils can pass exams. Science thus becomes seen as the expression of authority and belief rather than the outcome of questioning and challenge. Thus people generally do not develop a kind of critical immune system for ideas, which enables them to challenge and question new information. Instead, they become acquiescent to the voice of authority. And so when anyone with a suitably authoritative title, such as professor or even ex-chancellor of the exchequer, stands up and makes a statement about climate change, they are willing to take it as uncritically as we have trained them to do with the 'official' science output. Teach science as process, and you make people independent, able to make up their own mind logically. Teach it as doctrine, and you make them vulnerable to whoever comes along next. By portraying science as a body of facts and doctrine, it becomes regarded as one of several competing viewpoints of equal validity - instead of retaining its higher ground of providing the intellectual overview that can enable us to make a rational judgment from amongst several competing claims and counter-claims. The key point is that science is radical and revolutionary and challenges ideas - which means that it challenges established ideas but also provides an equal challenge that any criticism of them must meet. Thus it continually sifts out the gold from the dross. What is going wrong was pointed out years ago in a book by Driver et al when they warned about schools teaching science as facts rather than process, but no one listened. There is no overall strategy to the 'public engagement science' movement, other than the Victorian one of 'science is good for you'. One shining example of the demonstration of science-as-process is Cafe Scientifique, where the aim is to discuss ideas in a rational manner. In fact, it is interesting to see the range of ideas at Cafes, and how they find that a whole spectrum of ideas can be discussed. And of course, the reason why so mnay school pupils find science boring is that they are at an age when they like to question, rather than to absorb dogma from authority. This single issue of science-as-dogma or science-as-process is what 'expert groups' such as this should be focusing on. Tim’s story sums up how much is going wrong with the whole field on what is nothing less than a day of shame for the whole ‘public engagement with science’ establishment – the day when a Sunday Telegraph poll has shown that very nearly half the population of the UK do not believe that climate change is man-made.

After so many government initiatives, with science centres and STEMpoints and STEMnets and goodness knows how many other acronyms, not to mention the earnest endeavours of the British Science Association, the entire impact of the lot over the past twenty years has been negated by half a dozen sceptics with a few press statements. The extent to which the ‘educated and engaged’ people have taken these statements uncritically is quite remarkable – and is something that has to be recognised and studied.

I believe that the situation has actually been made worse by a lot of the ‘public engagement of science’ initiatives, and by much of the educational system. We teach science as facts, as a body of dogma, in order that pupils can pass exams. Science thus becomes seen as the expression of authority and belief rather than the outcome of questioning and challenge. Thus people generally do not develop a kind of critical immune system for ideas, which enables them to challenge and question new information. Instead, they become acquiescent to the voice of authority. And so when anyone with a suitably authoritative title, such as professor or even ex-chancellor of the exchequer, stands up and makes a statement about climate change, they are willing to take it as uncritically as we have trained them to do with the ‘official’ science output.

Teach science as process, and you make people independent, able to make up their own mind logically. Teach it as doctrine, and you make them vulnerable to whoever comes along next.

By portraying science as a body of facts and doctrine, it becomes regarded as one of several competing viewpoints of equal validity – instead of retaining its higher ground of providing the intellectual overview that can enable us to make a rational judgment from amongst several competing claims and counter-claims.

The key point is that science is radical and revolutionary and challenges ideas – which means that it challenges established ideas but also provides an equal challenge that any criticism of them must meet. Thus it continually sifts out the gold from the dross.

What is going wrong was pointed out years ago in a book by Driver et al when they warned about schools teaching science as facts rather than process, but no one listened. There is no overall strategy to the ‘public engagement science’ movement, other than the Victorian one of ’science is good for you’.

One shining example of the demonstration of science-as-process is Cafe Scientifique, where the aim is to discuss ideas in a rational manner. In fact, it is interesting to see the range of ideas at Cafes, and how they find that a whole spectrum of ideas can be discussed.

And of course, the reason why so mnay school pupils find science boring is that they are at an age when they like to question, rather than to absorb dogma from authority. This single issue of science-as-dogma or science-as-process is what ‘expert groups’ such as this should be focusing on.

]]> Comment on Science for All Expert Group by Tim Johnson http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://interactive.bis.gov.uk/scienceandsociety/site/science-for-all/comment-page-1/#comment-2403 Tim Johnson Mon, 07 Dec 2009 09:48:43 +0000 http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://interactive.dius.gov.uk/scienceandsociety/site/?page_id=102#comment-2403 Howie's note gives me an excuse to vent about another example of how badly the system is broken. I have a funding from the Edinburgh Beacon for Public engagement to put together some events to raise people's awareness of the relationship between science and finance. After speaking to the National Museum of Scotland and the Science Museum, it became clear that there were no "artefacts2 that could be suitably displayed in an exhibition. Following participation in Crucible I realised a solution would be to get artists involved; finance, maths and art are all connected by trying to understand the relationships between abstract objects. I have had productive discussions with the Royal College of Art about involving MSc Design Communication students in a project to look at representing "risk" and how maths tackles it in the context of finance, and then build a traveling exhibition of the outcomes. The obvious funding vehicle would be an EPSRC Partnership in Public Engagement (maths + RCA + museums). However, despite the fact that on all my technical papers I acknowledge support from grant EP/C508882/1, my RCUK Fellowship which is provided by EPSRC, I am not "technically" EPSRC funded and so I cannot apply for a PPE grant. Not being able to compete for funds on such a technicality seems absurd! Howie’s note gives me an excuse to vent about another example of how badly the system is broken.

I have a funding from the Edinburgh Beacon for Public engagement to put together some events to raise people’s awareness of the relationship between science and finance. After speaking to the National Museum of Scotland and the Science Museum, it became clear that there were no “artefacts2 that could be suitably displayed in an exhibition. Following participation in Crucible I realised a solution would be to get artists involved; finance, maths and art are all connected by trying to understand the relationships between abstract objects.

I have had productive discussions with the Royal College of Art about involving MSc Design Communication students in a project to look at representing “risk” and how maths tackles it in the context of finance, and then build a traveling exhibition of the outcomes.

The obvious funding vehicle would be an EPSRC Partnership in Public Engagement (maths + RCA + museums).

However, despite the fact that on all my technical papers I acknowledge support from grant EP/C508882/1, my RCUK Fellowship which is provided by EPSRC, I am not “technically” EPSRC funded and so I cannot apply for a PPE grant.

Not being able to compete for funds on such a technicality seems absurd!

]]> Comment on Science for All Expert Group by Howie Firth http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://interactive.bis.gov.uk/scienceandsociety/site/science-for-all/comment-page-1/#comment-2387 Howie Firth Sat, 05 Dec 2009 12:28:22 +0000 http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://interactive.dius.gov.uk/scienceandsociety/site/?page_id=102#comment-2387 Due to pressure of work, I hadn't accessed this discussion for some time, and the comments from Tim Johnson made me sit up and think. These issues that he is working on are absolutely vital to the UK and to every single one of us. We are in an appalling economic situation, in which we need every scrap of information about how we got into it and how we get out of it, and he is highlighting ways of doing this. A series of questions come to the fore. Do the banks now realise the failings of their financial models? Or do some of their management still believe that they were the victim of circumstances? Do the politicians responsible for supervising the banks understand the root cause of the problem? Have they ensured that the discredited financial models have been replaced? And why was it so difficult for anyone in science and government circles to recognise the significance of Tim Johnson's work and do something about it? What on earth, for instance, was the EPSRC doing when all it could do was to tell him to contact a private lobby group? With all their contacts with government, was there nowhere else in the whole system that they knew would be able to at least listen and at best to respond? It seems to me that behind the questions of the interactions of science and society is the deeper one of that between science and government. We seem to live in a society of pressure groups, lobbyists, establishments and vested interests, and in the middle of it a kind of box-ticking bureaucracy that is incapable of deploying the resources of science in a sytematic way to tackle issues in the short term (banking) or the longer term (peak oil, climate change). There are fundamental questions to be addressed. Due to pressure of work, I hadn’t accessed this discussion for some time, and the comments from Tim Johnson made me sit up and think. These issues that he is working on are absolutely vital to the UK and to every single one of us. We are in an appalling economic situation, in which we need every scrap of information about how we got into it and how we get out of it, and he is highlighting ways of doing this. A series of questions come to the fore. Do the banks now realise the failings of their financial models? Or do some of their management still believe that they were the victim of circumstances? Do the politicians responsible for supervising the banks understand the root cause of the problem? Have they ensured that the discredited financial models have been replaced? And why was it so difficult for anyone in science and government circles to recognise the significance of Tim Johnson’s work and do something about it? What on earth, for instance, was the EPSRC doing when all it could do was to tell him to contact a private lobby group? With all their contacts with government, was there nowhere else in the whole system that they knew would be able to at least listen and at best to respond? It seems to me that behind the questions of the interactions of science and society is the deeper one of that between science and government. We seem to live in a society of pressure groups, lobbyists, establishments and vested interests, and in the middle of it a kind of box-ticking bureaucracy that is incapable of deploying the resources of science in a sytematic way to tackle issues in the short term (banking) or the longer term (peak oil, climate change). There are fundamental questions to be addressed.

]]> Comment on UK Science and Society by Can you trust a scientist? « Understanding Cancer http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://interactive.bis.gov.uk/scienceandsociety/site/comment-page-1/#comment-2304 Can you trust a scientist? « Understanding Cancer Thu, 19 Nov 2009 16:45:57 +0000 http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://interactive.dius.gov.uk/scienceandsociety/site/?page_id=251#comment-2304 [...] you trust a scientist? The UK government has a website called “Science and Society in the UK“, it is part of the Department for Business Innovation and Skills. They want to improve build [...] [...] you trust a scientist? The UK government has a website called “Science and Society in the UK“, it is part of the Department for Business Innovation and Skills. They want to improve build [...]

]]> Comment on Science and the Media Expert Group by David Colquhoun http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://interactive.bis.gov.uk/scienceandsociety/site/science-and-the-media/comment-page-1/#comment-2247 David Colquhoun Tue, 10 Nov 2009 09:56:06 +0000 http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://interactive.dius.gov.uk/scienceandsociety/site/?page_id=112#comment-2247 Might it be a good idea to include a blogger or two in the discussions? After all, they are often faster, and frequently more accurate, than the mainstream media, and some of them are very widely read (something like half a million hist per month on badscience.net, I believe, amd 60,000 even on mine) Might it be a good idea to include a blogger or two in the discussions?

After all, they are often faster, and frequently more accurate, than the mainstream media, and some of them are very widely read (something like half a million hist per month on badscience.net, I believe, amd 60,000 even on mine)

]]> Comment on UK Science and Society by Our G2010 panel: Digital Engagement is Everyone’s Job - Archive - The Dextrous Web http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://interactive.bis.gov.uk/scienceandsociety/site/comment-page-1/#comment-2192 Our G2010 panel: Digital Engagement is Everyone’s Job - Archive - The Dextrous Web Tue, 27 Oct 2009 12:23:48 +0000 http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://interactive.dius.gov.uk/scienceandsociety/site/?page_id=251#comment-2192 [...] solution we’ve adopted so far is to try and make it easier to dip one’s toes into a formal consultation. This has been valuable, and we’ve learned a lot from it, but I don’t think it’s [...] [...] solution we’ve adopted so far is to try and make it easier to dip one’s toes into a formal consultation. This has been valuable, and we’ve learned a lot from it, but I don’t think it’s [...]

]]> Comment on Science and Learning Expert Group by Claire Holt http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://interactive.bis.gov.uk/scienceandsociety/site/science-and-learning/comment-page-1/#comment-2144 Claire Holt Thu, 15 Oct 2009 11:58:14 +0000 http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://interactive.dius.gov.uk/scienceandsociety/site/118/#comment-2144 I am starting up my own company called Flashbang science which is a bright mobile laboratory moving from primary school to primary school.I am passionate about introducing "hands on" science to children and I am aware that you will all know the benefits of this. Because of my desire to make this available to all schools regardless of size, ability, budget size I am limiting the cost to schools. The follow on consequence is that Flashbang science costs are not fully covered and as such I need some financial support. Can you help in facing me in the right direction please? I am starting up my own company called Flashbang science which is a bright mobile laboratory moving from primary school to primary school.I am passionate about introducing “hands on” science to children and I am aware that you will all know the benefits of this. Because of my desire to make this available to all schools regardless of size, ability, budget size I am limiting the cost to schools. The follow on consequence is that Flashbang science costs are not fully covered and as such I need some financial support. Can you help in facing me in the right direction please?

]]> Comment on Science and Learning Expert Group by Colin piddington http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://interactive.bis.gov.uk/scienceandsociety/site/science-and-learning/comment-page-1/#comment-2025 Colin piddington Fri, 18 Sep 2009 15:04:32 +0000 http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://interactive.dius.gov.uk/scienceandsociety/site/118/#comment-2025 It seems that in all walks of life collaborative actions, across multiple view points and skills, are needed, however this would seem to be a product of experience. If I look at the Japanese of the 80s they appear to have taught their children in primary school how to work together and today best practice team working is seen as the Toyota methods. I question if our delivery methods of education need to be updated to include collaboration and sharing and isolation and clean competitiveness. Can Games be used to do this built into the education process?. These games would be based on real scenarios from industry and commerce and simulate the old 5 year apprenticeships but more aligned to knowledge exploitation, such as collaborative design for realisation in another place. Also project management basics should be included as to the soft areas of team motivation. The capabilities to meet the national need of human capital is not being created in my opinion because of traditional approaches of silos of information and no inte3gration to real problem. Knowledge economy has a lot envisaging than observation moving from manual trade to more cerebral visioning. I hope this makes sense. It seems that in all walks of life collaborative actions, across multiple view points and skills, are needed, however this would seem to be a product of experience. If I look at the Japanese of the 80s they appear to have taught their children in primary school how to work together and today best practice team working is seen as the Toyota methods.
I question if our delivery methods of education need to be updated to include collaboration and sharing and isolation and clean competitiveness. Can Games be used to do this built into the education process?. These games would be based on real scenarios from industry and commerce and simulate the old 5 year apprenticeships but more aligned to knowledge exploitation, such as collaborative design for realisation in another place. Also project management basics should be included as to the soft areas of team motivation.
The capabilities to meet the national need of human capital is not being created in my opinion because of traditional approaches of silos of information and no inte3gration to real problem. Knowledge economy has a lot envisaging than observation moving from manual trade to more cerebral visioning.
I hope this makes sense.

]]> Comment on Science and Learning Expert Group by Angela Berryman http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://interactive.bis.gov.uk/scienceandsociety/site/science-and-learning/comment-page-1/#comment-1885 Angela Berryman Fri, 21 Aug 2009 11:30:54 +0000 http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://interactive.dius.gov.uk/scienceandsociety/site/118/#comment-1885 Increasing numbers of young(14-19)learners, and mature potential entrants onto HE science courses, are studying in FE colleges rather than schools. To what extent therefore are you going to look at the potential to expand specialist science teaching through Further Education providers? The dual professionalism model for QTLS gives ample scope for training and developing specialist science teachers as well as for scientists to combine teaching with other work. Increasing numbers of young(14-19)learners, and mature potential entrants onto HE science courses, are studying in FE colleges rather than schools. To what extent therefore are you going to look at the potential to expand specialist science teaching through Further Education providers? The dual professionalism model for QTLS gives ample scope for training and developing specialist science teachers as well as for scientists to combine teaching with other work.

]]> Comment on Consultation Summary Report by Web design teesside http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://interactive.bis.gov.uk/scienceandsociety/site/consultation/consultation-summary-report/comment-page-1/#comment-1756 Web design teesside Mon, 03 Aug 2009 10:45:12 +0000 http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://interactive.dius.gov.uk/scienceandsociety/site/?p=56#comment-1756 I agree. And wonder what the future holds for religion. I agree. And wonder what the future holds for religion.

]]> Comment on Consultation Summary Report by IT guy http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://interactive.bis.gov.uk/scienceandsociety/site/consultation/consultation-summary-report/comment-page-1/#comment-1755 IT guy Mon, 03 Aug 2009 10:43:40 +0000 http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://interactive.dius.gov.uk/scienceandsociety/site/?p=56#comment-1755 I dont think that science will ever have all the answers. Science is there in my opinion to give us the understanding to ask more questions. I dont think that science will ever have all the answers. Science is there in my opinion to give us the understanding to ask more questions.

]]> Comment on Science for All Expert Group by Kehinde Ross http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://interactive.bis.gov.uk/scienceandsociety/site/science-for-all/comment-page-1/#comment-1705 Kehinde Ross Tue, 14 Jul 2009 22:56:01 +0000 http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://interactive.dius.gov.uk/scienceandsociety/site/?page_id=102#comment-1705 What I have found from my outreach to Schools (through the Researchers in Residence programme, Aimhigher Merseyside and the Nuffield Bursary scheme) is that there is a huge gap between science as taught in schools and research as conducted in universities. Mechanisms for closing this gap (not least widening the eligibility criteria for the Researchers in Residence scheme) would be welcome - which will require money. What I have found from my outreach to Schools (through the Researchers in Residence programme, Aimhigher Merseyside and the Nuffield Bursary scheme) is that there is a huge gap between science as taught in schools and research as conducted in universities. Mechanisms for closing this gap (not least widening the eligibility criteria for the Researchers in Residence scheme) would be welcome – which will require money.

]]> Comment on Science and Learning Expert Group by mbooth http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://interactive.bis.gov.uk/scienceandsociety/site/science-and-learning/comment-page-1/#comment-1692 mbooth Mon, 06 Jul 2009 11:33:01 +0000 http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://interactive.dius.gov.uk/scienceandsociety/site/118/#comment-1692 Hello Eleanor I fixed it, assuming that "halp" for "help" was the only one. Kind regards Marilyn B Science & Society Hello Eleanor

I fixed it, assuming that “halp” for “help” was the only one.

Kind regards

Marilyn B
Science & Society

]]> Comment on Science and Learning Expert Group by Eleanor Hills http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://interactive.bis.gov.uk/scienceandsociety/site/science-and-learning/comment-page-1/#comment-1691 Eleanor Hills Mon, 06 Jul 2009 10:18:26 +0000 http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://interactive.dius.gov.uk/scienceandsociety/site/118/#comment-1691 Please excuse the typos in the previous message! Please excuse the typos in the previous message!

]]> Comment on Science and Learning Expert Group by Eleanor Hills http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://interactive.bis.gov.uk/scienceandsociety/site/science-and-learning/comment-page-1/#comment-1690 Eleanor Hills Mon, 06 Jul 2009 10:17:32 +0000 http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://interactive.dius.gov.uk/scienceandsociety/site/118/#comment-1690 Do you need any input from Psychology? As Head of subject in a school in Leeds I would be happy to be involved. I like the idea of researchers in residence, and feel the ability to do plenty of practical work has been sacrificed by the demands of the new syllabus for Psychology. there is a requirement to help students understand 'How science works' but little time to do it in. Do you need any input from Psychology? As Head of subject in a school in Leeds I would be happy to be involved.
I like the idea of researchers in residence, and feel the ability to do plenty of practical work has been sacrificed by the demands of the new syllabus for Psychology. there is a requirement to help students understand ‘How science works’ but little time to do it in.

]]> Comment on Science for All Expert Group by Pat Morton http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://interactive.bis.gov.uk/scienceandsociety/site/science-for-all/comment-page-1/#comment-1688 Pat Morton Sat, 04 Jul 2009 10:23:22 +0000 http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://interactive.dius.gov.uk/scienceandsociety/site/?page_id=102#comment-1688 I am pleased there is at least one social scientist in the group. Professor Peter Reason's ( University of Bath)letter in the Guardian (3.7.09)in discussion about climate change technologies makes an excellent point about the need for science to better understand the human factor - that it is 'fallible women and men' working together that can actually bring change. There are many examples of scientific solutions in recent times that fail because of a lack of real understanding of the way society really works. I am pleased there is at least one social scientist in the group. Professor Peter Reason’s ( University of Bath)letter in the Guardian (3.7.09)in discussion about climate change technologies makes an excellent point about the need for science to better understand the human factor – that it is ‘fallible women and men’ working together that can actually bring change. There are many examples of scientific solutions in recent times that fail because of a lack of real understanding of the way society really works.

]]> Comment on Science for All Expert Group by Roland Jackson http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://interactive.bis.gov.uk/scienceandsociety/site/science-for-all/comment-page-1/#comment-1686 Roland Jackson Thu, 02 Jul 2009 11:28:21 +0000 http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://interactive.dius.gov.uk/scienceandsociety/site/?page_id=102#comment-1686 I agree that social science perspectives are vital. There is in fact a social scientist in this group (Nick Allum) and many of us are well connected into the social science community. I'd just like to stress that we have had to establish a 'group' for practical purposes, and given the breadth and complexity of this field the group will inevitably not reflect all constituenceis and points of view. We are trying to be very open about the process and both seek and welcome any constructive analysis, and particularly specific recommendations, to help us deliver the task we have been set. I agree that social science perspectives are vital. There is in fact a social scientist in this group (Nick Allum) and many of us are well connected into the social science community. I’d just like to stress that we have had to establish a ‘group’ for practical purposes, and given the breadth and complexity of this field the group will inevitably not reflect all constituenceis and points of view. We are trying to be very open about the process and both seek and welcome any constructive analysis, and particularly specific recommendations, to help us deliver the task we have been set.

]]> Comment on Science for All Expert Group by pat morton http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://interactive.bis.gov.uk/scienceandsociety/site/science-for-all/comment-page-1/#comment-1685 pat morton Thu, 02 Jul 2009 11:07:14 +0000 http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://interactive.dius.gov.uk/scienceandsociety/site/?page_id=102#comment-1685 If the science community is serious about engaging with society why aren't there any social scientists in this group? We (the science community) need to listen and learn and not just communicate science to the people. Too often we put science well above any other aspects of policy...scientists are often ill informed about society and political issues and then get surprised when society doesn't like what science is saying. Please let us consider all society too - including those who are under represented in science. If the science community is serious about engaging with society why aren’t there any social scientists in this group? We (the science community) need to listen and learn and not just communicate science to the people. Too often we put science well above any other aspects of policy…scientists are often ill informed about society and political issues and then get surprised when society doesn’t like what science is saying. Please let us consider all society too – including those who are under represented in science.

]]> Comment on Science for All Expert Group by Tim Johnson http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://interactive.bis.gov.uk/scienceandsociety/site/science-for-all/comment-page-1/#comment-1679 Tim Johnson Wed, 01 Jul 2009 10:24:46 +0000 http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://interactive.dius.gov.uk/scienceandsociety/site/?page_id=102#comment-1679 I am the RCUK Academic Fellow in Financial Maths and as such I am spending a lot of my time talking about how the financial crisis of 2007-2008 was a result of an abuse of science (I often refer to "magical" thinking being employed by banks rather than "scientific" thinking). You may have picked up that much of the reporting of the financial crisis has been ill-informed, and at the moment it seems to boil down to two main arguments. On the left we have "bankers are greedy and should be strung up", on the right we have "it's the government's fault caused by low interest rates / trade imbalances / creation of the FSA". These arguments ignore the fundamental fact that banks conducted their business based on mathematical models, and the banks that had a good scientific ethos (J.P. Morgan, BNP Paribas) weathered the crisis relatively well, while others whose senior management, to quote a senior academic, abused science and treated the models as "black boxes" and failed disastrously (Lehmans, RBS). In the modern world, good finance rests on good science just as good energy policy, good health care, good engineering rests on good science. Today, you will not find an academic in financial maths who accepts maths caused the crisis, but there is a sense of culpability on the basis that the maths community was not more vocal in engaging with society about what was happening in the banks. See two articles by the science correspondent of the FT for background: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/02862d9c-157c-11de-b9a9-0000779fd2ac.html http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/04270e78-5555-11de-b5d4-00144feabdc0.html The second article refers to a letter from the maths community to Lord Turner, head of the FSA, in the letter (which I drafted) there is the following statement "The financial mathematics community also sees a role for itself in engaging the public in how mathematics is used in the financial services industry. This will support the objectives of the FSA in creating more informed investors,..." I am biased, but for me the "public" would be very interested in what maths professors from, e.g., Cambridge, Oxford, Imperial and the LSE have to say about the financial crisis. However, the mechanisms to enable this form of engagement do not exist. When I approached the Science Media Centre and Sense About Science (on the advice of EPSRC) in September 2008 the response was "this has nothing to do with science" (the SMC have come round to my way of thinking following an intervention from DIUS, I believe). At the moment I am about the only person trying to engage the public on this issue, an issue that has a direct impact on everyone's life. One part-time effort is not going to make any headway against the combined might of the banks' PR machines, who are happy for the debate to focus on ideology but would not like the spotlight to fall on their competencies. A key issue for the Science for All Expert Group is the fact that my Head of Department and Head of School frequently remind me (in a supportive manner) that public engagement will not help my career (which is enhanced by research publications for the REF etc.). But I think they are wrong, if British Science is to do anything it should be connecting relevant research to society and a key question for the Expert Group is whether the mechanisms are in place for "coal face" researchers to engage without ruining their academic careers. Background material can be found at my blog: http://magic-maths-money.blogspot.com/ I am the RCUK Academic Fellow in Financial Maths and as such I am spending a lot of my time talking about how the financial crisis of 2007-2008 was a result of an abuse of science (I often refer to “magical” thinking being employed by banks rather than “scientific” thinking).

You may have picked up that much of the reporting of the financial crisis has been ill-informed, and at the moment it seems to boil down to two main arguments. On the left we have “bankers are greedy and should be strung up”, on the right we have “it’s the government’s fault caused by low interest rates / trade imbalances / creation of the FSA”. These arguments ignore the fundamental fact that banks conducted their business based on mathematical models, and the banks that had a good scientific ethos (J.P. Morgan, BNP Paribas) weathered the crisis relatively well, while others whose senior management, to quote a senior academic, abused science and treated the models as “black boxes” and failed disastrously (Lehmans, RBS). In the modern world, good finance rests on good science just as good energy policy, good health care, good engineering rests on good science.

Today, you will not find an academic in financial maths who accepts maths caused the crisis, but there is a sense of culpability on the basis that the maths community was not more vocal in engaging with society about what was happening in the banks. See two articles by the science correspondent of the FT for background:
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/02862d9c-157c-11de-b9a9-0000779fd2ac.html
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/04270e78-5555-11de-b5d4-00144feabdc0.html
The second article refers to a letter from the maths community to Lord Turner, head of the FSA, in the letter (which I drafted) there is the following statement
“The financial mathematics community also sees a role for itself in engaging the public in how mathematics is used in the financial services industry. This will support the objectives of the FSA in creating more informed investors,…”

I am biased, but for me the “public” would be very interested in what maths professors from, e.g., Cambridge, Oxford, Imperial and the LSE have to say about the financial crisis. However, the mechanisms to enable this form of engagement do not exist. When I approached the Science Media Centre and Sense About Science (on the advice of EPSRC) in September 2008 the response was “this has nothing to do with science” (the SMC have come round to my way of thinking following an intervention from DIUS, I believe). At the moment I am about the only person trying to engage the public on this issue, an issue that has a direct impact on everyone’s life. One part-time effort is not going to make any headway against the combined might of the banks’ PR machines, who are happy for the debate to focus on ideology but would not like the spotlight to fall on their competencies.

A key issue for the Science for All Expert Group is the fact that my Head of Department and Head of School frequently remind me (in a supportive manner) that public engagement will not help my career (which is enhanced by research publications for the REF etc.). But I think they are wrong, if British Science is to do anything it should be connecting relevant research to society and a key question for the Expert Group is whether the mechanisms are in place for “coal face” researchers to engage without ruining their academic careers.

Background material can be found at my blog: http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://magic-maths-money.blogspot.com/

]]> Comment on Science and Society up to now by David Chester http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://interactive.bis.gov.uk/scienceandsociety/site/strategy/comment-page-1/#comment-1671 David Chester Wed, 24 Jun 2009 13:18:37 +0000 http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://interactive.dius.gov.uk/scienceandsociety/site/?page_id=163#comment-1671 I am concerned that finance experts and macroeconomics specialists continue to be confused over their subject and to spread further confusion in the ways that they teach it. In my opinion this is due to the failure of these experts to a) start from basics and b) examine the issues in a truly scientific manner, without being constrained by their "politically correct" supervisors. Taking into account these two facts I have developed an exact theory of macroeconomics (believe it or not) that is of an averaging-properties kind, similar to the approach scientists use for modelling and forecasting the gas laws in physics. The model that I use has a small number of variables compared to many of the current econometric ones currently used, yet it is able to show the effect of obtaining equilibrium and stability for short-terms for the whole macroeconomic system in a comprehensive way. When will our sciences become open enough to accept that it is possible to model very complex situations by simple models, provided their functional properties of various kinds of entities within the community are taken as groups of like-acting entities and not as myriad individuals? I am concerned that finance experts and macroeconomics specialists continue to be confused over their subject and to spread further confusion in the ways that they teach it. In my opinion this is due to the failure of these experts to a) start from basics and b) examine the issues in a truly scientific manner, without being constrained by their “politically correct” supervisors.

Taking into account these two facts I have developed an exact theory of macroeconomics (believe it or not) that is of an averaging-properties kind, similar to the approach scientists use for modelling and forecasting the gas laws in physics. The model that I use has a small number of variables compared to many of the current econometric ones currently used, yet it is able to show the effect of obtaining equilibrium and stability for short-terms for the whole macroeconomic system in a comprehensive way.

When will our sciences become open enough to accept that it is possible to model very complex situations by simple models, provided their functional properties of various kinds of entities within the community are taken as groups of like-acting entities and not as myriad individuals?

]]> Comment on Science for All Expert Group by David Rogers http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://interactive.bis.gov.uk/scienceandsociety/site/science-for-all/comment-page-1/#comment-1669 David Rogers Tue, 23 Jun 2009 09:34:35 +0000 http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://interactive.dius.gov.uk/scienceandsociety/site/?page_id=102#comment-1669 I think you have a mammoth task in this. Most of the promotional "public interest" schemes we see nationally do seem to miss the mark. Telling us to look at this or be interested in that is still setting up that terrible relationship between audience and speaker that reminds us of being doorstepped by an unwanted salesman or religious promoter. It's going to be difficult to create a mode of engagement where the creativity and challenge of science (STEM) is preserved while still reaching the widest possible audience. I think you have a mammoth task in this. Most of the promotional “public interest” schemes we see nationally do seem to miss the mark. Telling us to look at this or be interested in that is still setting up that terrible relationship between audience and speaker that reminds us of being doorstepped by an unwanted salesman or religious promoter. It’s going to be difficult to create a mode of engagement where the creativity and challenge of science (STEM) is preserved while still reaching the widest possible audience.

]]> Comment on Science for All Expert Group by Duncan Dallas http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://interactive.bis.gov.uk/scienceandsociety/site/science-for-all/comment-page-1/#comment-1668 Duncan Dallas Mon, 22 Jun 2009 11:05:54 +0000 http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://interactive.dius.gov.uk/scienceandsociety/site/?page_id=102#comment-1668 I agree with Howie. When we do CafeSci in schools we have to start where the pupils are, not where the curriculum is. So if they are interested in fashion, music, relationships, mobile phones and facebook that's where the speaker starts, then brings in scientific ideas and, more importantly, scientific ways of thinking - like looking for evidence, thinking of experiments and analyising theories. Equally importantly, the science can be discussed and questioned, not just taught. I agree with Howie. When we do CafeSci in schools we have to start where the pupils are, not where the curriculum is. So if they are interested in fashion, music, relationships, mobile phones and facebook that’s where the speaker starts, then brings in scientific ideas and, more importantly, scientific ways of thinking – like looking for evidence, thinking of experiments and analyising theories. Equally importantly, the science can be discussed and questioned, not just taught.

]]> Comment on Science for Careers Expert Group by Diana Garnham http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://interactive.bis.gov.uk/scienceandsociety/site/science-for-careers/comment-page-1/#comment-1667 Diana Garnham Mon, 22 Jun 2009 09:30:41 +0000 http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://interactive.dius.gov.uk/scienceandsociety/site/?page_id=120#comment-1667 We want to hear your views on the issues being raised with the expert group. Some of the comments received so far have asked what we mean by career. I don't think we should get side tracked on definitions but we would very much like to hear your views on this. In relation to science/technology/engineering careers do you have any views on the following questions and statements? What is a career? Or is there no answer to this because it is a very personal journey? Job, occupation, career – do they all mean the same thing? When does a career begin and end? Can an individual have more than one? Is the employer or society or the individual responsible for career planning? The concept of career is not relevant to the 21st century labour market. Do people think about 'career' differently at different stages of their lives and does this mean that provision of careers advice and services needs to reflect this? Diana We want to hear your views on the issues being raised with the expert group. Some of the comments received so far have asked what we mean by career. I don’t think we should get side tracked on definitions but we would very much like to hear your views on this. In relation to science/technology/engineering careers do you have any views on the following questions and statements?

What is a career? Or is there no answer to this because it is a very personal journey?

Job, occupation, career – do they all mean the same thing?

When does a career begin and end?

Can an individual have more than one?

Is the employer or society or the individual responsible for career planning?

The concept of career is not relevant to the 21st century labour market.

Do people think about ‘career’ differently at different stages of their lives and does this mean that provision of careers advice and services needs to reflect this?

Diana

]]> Comment on Science for All Expert Group by Howie Firth http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://interactive.bis.gov.uk/scienceandsociety/site/science-for-all/comment-page-1/#comment-1658 Howie Firth Fri, 19 Jun 2009 14:27:28 +0000 http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://interactive.dius.gov.uk/scienceandsociety/site/?page_id=102#comment-1658 Roland Jackson's ability to listen and to stimulate discussion (which is much rarer than is often realised) is going to be key to getting something out of this initiative - which has to involve breaking the mould that science education has become trapped in. Science developed as a radical challenge to authority. In the midst of the Thirty Years War, when corporate churches and states were forcing deference to prescribed doctrine, Descartes and Galileo said that the only way to truth was to doubt everything and to only believe what you could test for yourself. And people naturally love science, because they love the adventure of challenging established ideas and finding out new things for themselves. They naturally behave in the way that the founders of science highlighted. But we have managed to sicken today's generation - because we force them through a science curriculum that is in the format of an endless catechism of received wisdom - the very format that science was established to fight against. Young people have energy that can make them world-class footballers by the time they are seventeen. But if they show signs of becoming world-class scientists they have to plod their way through the formal education system until their late twenties. The Science So What campaign is an example of how to deter them. It looks at the gadgets around them and tells them in a mother-knows-best voice that This Is Science. The tone of voice is the same one that tells them to eat up their vegetables and not to take risks - the same tone of voice used by politicians in recent years to explain to us why financial services were the key to Britain's future. The best way to advance science in the UK is to radically transform the school curriculum to bring out the fact that science is about challenging authority, pushing back frontiers, making new things, tackling problems, creating original solutions, and doing so with revolutionary fire. And if the UK and the world are going to get through the crises we face, that approach is the only way. Roland Jackson’s ability to listen and to stimulate discussion (which is much rarer than is often realised) is going to be key to getting something out of this initiative – which has to involve breaking the mould that science education has become trapped in.

Science developed as a radical challenge to authority. In the midst of the Thirty Years War, when corporate churches and states were forcing deference to prescribed doctrine, Descartes and Galileo said that the only way to truth was to doubt everything and to only believe what you could test for yourself.

And people naturally love science, because they love the adventure of challenging established ideas and finding out new things for themselves. They naturally behave in the way that the founders of science highlighted.

But we have managed to sicken today’s generation – because we force them through a science curriculum that is in the format of an endless catechism of received wisdom – the very format that science was established to fight against.

Young people have energy that can make them world-class footballers by the time they are seventeen. But if they show signs of becoming world-class scientists they have to plod their way through the formal education system until their late twenties.

The Science So What campaign is an example of how to deter them. It looks at the gadgets around them and tells them in a mother-knows-best voice that This Is Science. The tone of voice is the same one that tells them to eat up their vegetables and not to take risks – the same tone of voice used by politicians in recent years to explain to us why financial services were the key to Britain’s future.

The best way to advance science in the UK is to radically transform the school curriculum to bring out the fact that science is about challenging authority, pushing back frontiers, making new things, tackling problems, creating original solutions, and doing so with revolutionary fire.

And if the UK and the world are going to get through the crises we face, that approach is the only way.

]]> Comment on Science for All Expert Group by Stephen White http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://interactive.bis.gov.uk/scienceandsociety/site/science-for-all/comment-page-1/#comment-1657 Stephen White Fri, 19 Jun 2009 08:54:26 +0000 http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://interactive.dius.gov.uk/scienceandsociety/site/?page_id=102#comment-1657 A few points: 1. The paper states 'Do we not seek a shared culture...?' and then 'In a shared culture...'. Given the vast number of 'cultures' and aspects of diversity that we are all meant to aware of I am not convinced that the great majority of us can cope with yet more cultural awareness. To my mind the things that drive us to want to/need to find out about 'science' or any other aspect of modern life that we are not already familiar with are very personal - eg our child is late to read, our partner has an unusual illness, - when these things occur then we are driven to find out and generally we do, and indeed some become 'experts'. 2. '...but few would diasagree that people...should have a broad scientific knowledge...' OK, it's motherhood and apple pie, but as said above when people need to find out they do. So, I think I may be a lone voice in saying that I disagree with the asumption. 3. If one accepts that a shift in culture is necessary then I hope the group will go to those experts who work in that field all day/every day - those who understand the change process and those who understand 'campaigning/behaviour change'. I look forward to seeing and reading more from this Group and welcome the opportunity to comment. A few points:
1. The paper states ‘Do we not seek a shared culture…?’ and then ‘In a shared culture…’. Given the vast number of ‘cultures’ and aspects of diversity that we are all meant to aware of I am not convinced that the great majority of us can cope with yet more cultural awareness. To my mind the things that drive us to want to/need to find out about ’science’ or any other aspect of modern life that we are not already familiar with are very personal – eg our child is late to read, our partner has an unusual illness, – when these things occur then we are driven to find out and generally we do, and indeed some become ‘experts’.
2. ‘…but few would diasagree that people…should have a broad scientific knowledge…’ OK, it’s motherhood and apple pie, but as said above when people need to find out they do. So, I think I may be a lone voice in saying that I disagree with the asumption.
3. If one accepts that a shift in culture is necessary then I hope the group will go to those experts who work in that field all day/every day – those who understand the change process and those who understand ‘campaigning/behaviour change’.
I look forward to seeing and reading more from this Group and welcome the opportunity to comment.

]]> Comment on Science for All Expert Group by Bill Graham http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://interactive.bis.gov.uk/scienceandsociety/site/science-for-all/comment-page-1/#comment-1653 Bill Graham Thu, 18 Jun 2009 18:38:36 +0000 http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://interactive.dius.gov.uk/scienceandsociety/site/?page_id=102#comment-1653 My experience, through working with a national careers organisation, is that pupils and most careers advisers have the perception that science is about how “the universe and everything” works and consequently produces lots of (boring) rules. To be a scientist you need to learn the existing (boring) rules first before searching for new (boring) rules. Being an engineer is even worse as you have to apply these (boring) rules to (boring) tasks like fixing things. Yes, “fixes things” is still by far the most common answer in Primary school classes to the question “What does an engineer do?”. It concerns me that the popular view is that “manufacturing industry” has failed in the UK and that the replacement solution of the “financial industry” has let us down even more emphatically. Many politicians and journalists now refer to the “creative industries” of the arts, media and architecture as the exciting area where the wealth-creating opportunities now lie. The corollary, of course, is that all other industries are BY DEFINITION not creative. I fear that this piece of thoughtless marketing will just confirm in the minds of pupils that the above perception of science and engineering is a (boring) career choice. Whatever, strategy Lord Drayson and the government devise to improve the public understanding of science, they must have high on the promotional agenda the fact that science and engineering are jointly THE creative industry that will define our future. My experience, through working with a national careers organisation, is that pupils and most careers advisers have the perception that science is about how “the universe and everything” works and consequently produces lots of (boring) rules. To be a scientist you need to learn the existing (boring) rules first before searching for new (boring) rules. Being an engineer is even worse as you have to apply these (boring) rules to (boring) tasks like fixing things. Yes, “fixes things” is still by far the most common answer in Primary school classes to the question “What does an engineer do?”.

It concerns me that the popular view is that “manufacturing industry” has failed in the UK and that the replacement solution of the “financial industry” has let us down even more emphatically. Many politicians and journalists now refer to the “creative industries” of the arts, media and architecture as the exciting area where the wealth-creating opportunities now lie.

The corollary, of course, is that all other industries are BY DEFINITION not creative. I fear that this piece of thoughtless marketing will just confirm in the minds of pupils that the above perception of science and engineering is a (boring) career choice.

Whatever, strategy Lord Drayson and the government devise to improve the public understanding of science, they must have high on the promotional agenda the fact that science and engineering are jointly THE creative industry that will define our future.

]]> Comment on Science for All Expert Group by Susie Burr http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://interactive.bis.gov.uk/scienceandsociety/site/science-for-all/comment-page-1/#comment-1652 Susie Burr Thu, 18 Jun 2009 07:54:03 +0000 http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://interactive.dius.gov.uk/scienceandsociety/site/?page_id=102#comment-1652 I agree with Howie that young people are talented and enthusiastic about many aspects of science. They want to get involved and put the 'world to rights' but how do we help them to do this? Teachers work hard in schools to enthuse and engage their pupils but does our education and exam system help or hinder? I agree with Howie that young people are talented and enthusiastic about many aspects of science. They want to get involved and put the ‘world to rights’ but how do we help them to do this?
Teachers work hard in schools to enthuse and engage their pupils but does our education and exam system help or hinder?

]]> Comment on Science for All Expert Group by Duncan Dallas http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://interactive.bis.gov.uk/scienceandsociety/site/science-for-all/comment-page-1/#comment-1648 Duncan Dallas Wed, 17 Jun 2009 10:59:39 +0000 http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://interactive.dius.gov.uk/scienceandsociety/site/?page_id=102#comment-1648 Let me give a few examples of shifting cultural awareness. When Cafe Scientifique started 10 years ago it was a great surprise to discover that moving discussion of science from a university to a winebar changed the nature and form of the discussion. When people go to a lecture theatre they expect to be lectured to, but when they go to a winebar they expect to have a conversation - and that's what happens, on equal terms with the scientists. In religion (another powerful cultural force) a change has happened here and in America. People now go to meetings in schools, theatres and Alpha courses where the religion is personal, ecumenical and passionate, not about learning the catechism in church from a priest in robes. Finally (in art) the queues outside the Bristol City Museum are there because Banksy painted on walls in the street, not on canvas for art dealers. So cultural change needs an alternative activity to current practise, developed at grassroots level outside the orthodox power structure. In a country where traditional institutions are under fire (parliament, banks, police, etc.,) a government committee of academics may have a hard task ahead. Let me give a few examples of shifting cultural awareness. When Cafe Scientifique started 10 years ago it was a great surprise to discover that moving discussion of science from a university to a winebar changed the nature and form of the discussion. When people go to a lecture theatre they expect to be lectured to, but when they go to a winebar they expect to have a conversation – and that’s what happens, on equal terms with the scientists.
In religion (another powerful cultural force) a change has happened here and in America. People now go to meetings in schools, theatres and Alpha courses where the religion is personal, ecumenical and passionate, not about learning the catechism in church from a priest in robes.
Finally (in art) the queues outside the Bristol City Museum are there because Banksy painted on walls in the street, not on canvas for art dealers.
So cultural change needs an alternative activity to current practise, developed at grassroots level outside the orthodox power structure. In a country where traditional institutions are under fire (parliament, banks, police, etc.,) a government committee of academics may have a hard task ahead.

]]> Comment on Science for All Expert Group by Howie Firth http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://interactive.bis.gov.uk/scienceandsociety/site/science-for-all/comment-page-1/#comment-1647 Howie Firth Wed, 17 Jun 2009 09:43:29 +0000 http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://interactive.dius.gov.uk/scienceandsociety/site/?page_id=102#comment-1647 I think that Lord Drayson is an ideal choice for Science Minister and is making a real impact for good, and the choice of the team is excellent - I see people with real charisma and flair. But I do agree with Duncan Dallas about the rather well-meaning and pedestrian material that you all seem to have been given. The Science So What So Everything campaign is a bit plodding and utilitarian. Young people are getting endless well-meaning messages from the older generation about what they should and shouldn't do, and they know that the only reason that these messages are coming through is to try to patch up the mistakes that the older generation have made on the environment, energy and the global economy. Young people respond to real challenges that enable talent to shine. We need to be straight with them: to tell them that we have made a terrible mess and we need them to put it right, and the only way we are going to do that is by the massive deployment of science and technology on a heroic scale. They want something to inspire them, something with a bit of fire, the kind of language in Ilya Prigogine's Order out of Chaos where he quotes Serge Moscovici, speaking about the way in which science is involved in our adventure of living, in a process of renewal, with a voice of rebirth and beginning. 'That is why the great discoveries are not revealed on a deathbed like that of Copernicus,' says Moscovici, 'but offered like Kepler's on the road of dreams and passion.' So my advice to the Minister and the team is to start with a blank sheet of paper, face up to the challenges, create your own vision - and give us a road of dreams and passion! I think that Lord Drayson is an ideal choice for Science Minister and is making a real impact for good, and the choice of the team is excellent – I see people with real charisma and flair. But I do agree with Duncan Dallas about the rather well-meaning and pedestrian material that you all seem to have been given. The Science So What So Everything campaign is a bit plodding and utilitarian. Young people are getting endless well-meaning messages from the older generation about what they should and shouldn’t do, and they know that the only reason that these messages are coming through is to try to patch up the mistakes that the older generation have made on the environment, energy and the global economy. Young people respond to real challenges that enable talent to shine. We need to be straight with them: to tell them that we have made a terrible mess and we need them to put it right, and the only way we are going to do that is by the massive deployment of science and technology on a heroic scale. They want something to inspire them, something with a bit of fire, the kind of language in Ilya Prigogine’s Order out of Chaos where he quotes Serge Moscovici, speaking about the way in which science is involved in our adventure of living, in a process of renewal, with a voice of rebirth and beginning. ‘That is why the great discoveries are not revealed on a deathbed like that of Copernicus,’ says Moscovici, ‘but offered like Kepler’s on the road of dreams and passion.’ So my advice to the Minister and the team is to start with a blank sheet of paper, face up to the challenges, create your own vision – and give us a road of dreams and passion!

]]> Comment on Science for All Expert Group by Roland Jackson http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://interactive.bis.gov.uk/scienceandsociety/site/science-for-all/comment-page-1/#comment-1646 Roland Jackson Tue, 16 Jun 2009 16:36:04 +0000 http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://interactive.dius.gov.uk/scienceandsociety/site/?page_id=102#comment-1646 Please keep these pertinent comments going. There's no intention to act like a 'top-down closed shop', though I can see the danger that the group make-up could convey that message. That's one reason why we want to look initially at what all the extensive public survey data of the last few years actually tells us about the assumptions behind the objectives the group has been set. Comments from people in relation to that would be particularly useful at this stage. We would also welcome thoughts about what might be done to shift cultural awareness that would be 'radical, surprising, provocative or exciting'. Please keep these pertinent comments going. There’s no intention to act like a ‘top-down closed shop’, though I can see the danger that the group make-up could convey that message. That’s one reason why we want to look initially at what all the extensive public survey data of the last few years actually tells us about the assumptions behind the objectives the group has been set. Comments from people in relation to that would be particularly useful at this stage.

We would also welcome thoughts about what might be done to shift cultural awareness that would be ‘radical, surprising, provocative or exciting’.

]]> Comment on Science for All Expert Group by Barbara Davies http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://interactive.bis.gov.uk/scienceandsociety/site/science-for-all/comment-page-1/#comment-1645 Barbara Davies Tue, 16 Jun 2009 14:48:26 +0000 http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://interactive.dius.gov.uk/scienceandsociety/site/?page_id=102#comment-1645 Well-meaning, yes. I can see that on this Group 'science' is very well represented. But what about 'all'? (Under) represented solely by the Consumers Association? This looks like a top-down closed shop, certainly not science meeting the public on equal terms. At least the media and learning groups have equal participation from the media and schools. Well-meaning, yes. I can see that on this Group ’science’ is very well represented. But what about ‘all’? (Under) represented solely by the Consumers Association? This looks like a top-down closed shop, certainly not science meeting the public on equal terms. At least the media and learning groups have equal participation from the media and schools.

]]> Comment on Science for All Expert Group by Duncan Dallas http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://interactive.bis.gov.uk/scienceandsociety/site/science-for-all/comment-page-1/#comment-1644 Duncan Dallas Tue, 16 Jun 2009 14:27:23 +0000 http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://interactive.dius.gov.uk/scienceandsociety/site/?page_id=102#comment-1644 This is a comfortable,well-meaning, middle-of-the-road document. There is nothing radical, surprising, provocative or exciting about it. Science is the most important force in our culture, but it is seen as inward looking, self-regulating, self-directing and inaccessible. Shifting cultural awareness is not just about 'recognition and support for science' and 'ensuring public perspectives are responded to', it is about people and scientists meeting on equal terms and learning from each other. Cultural changes result from radical activity not government policy. This is a comfortable,well-meaning, middle-of-the-road document. There is nothing radical, surprising, provocative or exciting about it. Science is the most important force in our culture, but it is seen as inward looking, self-regulating, self-directing and inaccessible. Shifting cultural awareness is not just about ‘recognition and support for science’ and ‘ensuring public perspectives are responded to’, it is about people and scientists meeting on equal terms and learning from each other. Cultural changes result from radical activity not government policy.

]]> Comment on Science and Society up to now by Catherine Reynolds http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://interactive.bis.gov.uk/scienceandsociety/site/strategy/comment-page-1/#comment-1634 Catherine Reynolds Mon, 08 Jun 2009 11:56:14 +0000 http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://interactive.dius.gov.uk/scienceandsociety/site/?page_id=163#comment-1634 Quote "This site will be regularly updated with news on the groups' activities and how others can get involved." requires those of us not involved with any of these groups to actively keep visiting. There's no RSS feed that I could find so I can be alerted when anything happens. Quote “This site will be regularly updated with news on the groups’ activities and how others can get involved.”

requires those of us not involved with any of these groups to actively keep visiting. There’s no RSS feed that I could find so I can be alerted when anything happens.

]]> Comment on Science for All Expert Group by Simon http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://interactive.bis.gov.uk/scienceandsociety/site/science-for-all/comment-page-1/#comment-1629 Simon Thu, 04 Jun 2009 10:42:19 +0000 http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://interactive.dius.gov.uk/scienceandsociety/site/?page_id=102#comment-1629 In the Public Attitudes to Science 2008 survey, 79% of respondents agreed that 'science is such a big part of our lives that we should take an interest'; how then are you able to make the assertion above "Research (see Public Attitudes to Science 2008) suggests that society does not see scientific research as relevant to everyday life"? In the Public Attitudes to Science 2008 survey, 79% of respondents agreed that ’science is such a big part of our lives that we should take an interest’; how then are you able to make the assertion above “Research (see Public Attitudes to Science 2008) suggests that society does not see scientific research as relevant to everyday life”?

]]> Comment on Science for All Expert Group by Dr. A. Van der Auweraert http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://interactive.bis.gov.uk/scienceandsociety/site/science-for-all/comment-page-1/#comment-1626 Dr. A. Van der Auweraert Tue, 02 Jun 2009 16:07:11 +0000 http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://interactive.dius.gov.uk/scienceandsociety/site/?page_id=102#comment-1626 I wish to focus on the following in your text: `communicating to society `. I believe this is to narrow, better is to talk about `communicating with society`. This way of thinking match better with the idea of engagement... Ann Van der Auweraert, PhD Assistant Professor Science Education & Communication www.sec.msc.tudelft.nl I wish to focus on the following in your text: `communicating to society `. I believe this is to narrow, better is to talk about `communicating with society`. This way of thinking match better with the idea of engagement…

Ann Van der Auweraert, PhD
Assistant Professor
Science Education & Communication
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.sec.msc.tudelft.nl

]]> Comment on Documents and links by Science: shining beacon or siren on the rocks? « VIVID http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://interactive.bis.gov.uk/scienceandsociety/site/download/comment-page-1/#comment-1095 Science: shining beacon or siren on the rocks? « VIVID Fri, 20 Mar 2009 13:16:31 +0000 http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://interactive.dius.gov.uk/scienceandsociety/site/?page_id=5#comment-1095 [...] Britain the government has just finished a consultation on its new Vision for Science and Society. To remedy the lack of enthusiasm the process uncovered it has started yet another public education [...] [...] Britain the government has just finished a consultation on its new Vision for Science and Society. To remedy the lack of enthusiasm the process uncovered it has started yet another public education [...]

]]> Comment on Consultation Summary Report by E-Demokratie.org » In eigener Sache » Rückblick 2008 - Teil 3 http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://interactive.bis.gov.uk/scienceandsociety/site/consultation/consultation-summary-report/comment-page-1/#comment-618 E-Demokratie.org » In eigener Sache » Rückblick 2008 - Teil 3 Thu, 05 Feb 2009 10:38:47 +0000 http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://interactive.dius.gov.uk/scienceandsociety/site/?p=56#comment-618 [...] um die geplannte Strategie des Ministeriums. Am 28. Januar 2009 veröffentlichte die Behörde einen Report, der die Ergebnisse der Konsultation [...] [...] um die geplannte Strategie des Ministeriums. Am 28. Januar 2009 veröffentlichte die Behörde einen Report, der die Ergebnisse der Konsultation [...]

]]> Comment on Consultation Summary Report by Geoffrey Haselhurst http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://interactive.bis.gov.uk/scienceandsociety/site/consultation/consultation-summary-report/comment-page-1/#comment-532 Geoffrey Haselhurst Fri, 30 Jan 2009 08:41:20 +0000 http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://interactive.dius.gov.uk/scienceandsociety/site/?p=56#comment-532 Well it would be useful to fix the problems in science. To do this is simple - just deduce the most simple science theory of reality - then you find science works without all the confusion and paradox that comes from the incorrect 'particle' foundations of reality. Sincerely, Geoff Haselhurst http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Most-Simple-Scientific-Theory-Reality.htm When forced to summarize the general theory of relativity in one sentence: Time and space and gravitation have no separate existence from matter. ... Physical objects are not in space, but these objects are spatially extended. In this way the concept 'empty space' loses its meaning. ... Since the theory of general relativity implies the representation of physical reality by a continuous field, the concept of particles or material points cannot play a fundamental part, ... and can only appear as a limited region in space where the field strength / energy density are particularly high. (Albert Einstein, 1950) The notion that all these fragments is separately existent is evidently an illusion, and this illusion cannot do other than lead to endless conflict and confusion. Indeed, the attempt to live according to the notion that the fragments are really separate is, in essence, what has led to the growing series of extremely urgent crises that is confronting us today. Thus, as is now well known, this way of life has brought about pollution, destruction of the balance of nature, over-population, world-wide economic and political disorder and the creation of an overall environment that is neither physically nor mentally healthy for most of the people who live in it. Individually there has developed a widespread feeling of helplessness and despair, in the face of what seems to be an overwhelming mass of disparate social forces, going beyond the control and even the comprehension of the human beings who are caught up in it. (David Bohm, Wholeness and the Implicate Order, 1980) Well it would be useful to fix the problems in science.
To do this is simple – just deduce the most simple science theory of reality – then you find science works without all the confusion and paradox that comes from the incorrect ‘particle’ foundations of reality.

Sincerely,
Geoff Haselhurst
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Most-Simple-Scientific-Theory-Reality.htm

When forced to summarize the general theory of relativity in one sentence:
Time and space and gravitation have no separate existence from matter. …
Physical objects are not in space, but these objects are spatially extended. In this way the concept ‘empty space’ loses its meaning. … Since the theory of general relativity implies the representation of physical reality by a continuous field, the concept of particles or material points cannot play a fundamental part, … and can only appear as a limited region in space where the field strength / energy density are particularly high. (Albert Einstein, 1950)

The notion that all these fragments is separately existent is evidently an illusion, and this illusion cannot do other than lead to endless conflict and confusion. Indeed, the attempt to live according to the notion that the fragments are really separate is, in essence, what has led to the growing series of extremely urgent crises that is confronting us today. Thus, as is now well known, this way of life has brought about pollution, destruction of the balance of nature, over-population, world-wide economic and political disorder and the creation of an overall environment that is neither physically nor mentally healthy for most of the people who live in it. Individually there has developed a widespread feeling of helplessness and despair, in the face of what seems to be an overwhelming mass of disparate social forces, going beyond the control and even the comprehension of the human beings who are caught up in it. (David Bohm, Wholeness and the Implicate Order, 1980)

]]> Comment on Consultation Summary Report by Mark Steele http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://interactive.bis.gov.uk/scienceandsociety/site/consultation/consultation-summary-report/comment-page-1/#comment-522 Mark Steele Thu, 29 Jan 2009 16:46:53 +0000 http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://interactive.dius.gov.uk/scienceandsociety/site/?p=56#comment-522 The relationship with the Media and simplistic entertainment has in part being responsible for un educating the masses. It could be said that this hand in glove relationship with dancing singing and everything not scientific is sypmtomatic of the Researchers and Media sector of having a closer and better understood view of light entertainment it would seem easy. Life sciences and Biology programme's used to fill the Saturday night spot with Attenborough et al having the nation glued to their seats. The Sky at Night Tommorows world all have fell by the way side and replaced with the Glitzy raz ama taz that we see today. While this is entertainig the masses it is not informing them of anything in particular and this I see as a problem. How difficult can it be for the BBC to host a show of inventions that can be assessed by a panel of commercial able individuals similiar to Dragons Den. Who would write the business plan. The next stage could be to secure funding and show how this can be achieved or have a prize to develop the product to a prototype using either scientists and technologists Take the Public into the Labs and workshops to show how products are designed made and refined. Then sell them. Like the X factor show sells records. If the masses can be shown how and what can be achieved with an idea and how the different aspects of science and commercial interests marry to make and develop new products and concepts then they may be more interested in the subject of science. The BBC have duty to inform the public. The spin off from such programmes could create the next generation of scientist. Mark Steele The relationship with the Media and simplistic entertainment has in part being responsible for un educating the masses. It could be said that this hand in glove relationship with dancing singing and everything not scientific is sypmtomatic of the Researchers and Media sector of having a closer and better understood view of light entertainment it would seem easy. Life sciences and Biology programme’s used to fill the Saturday night spot with Attenborough et al having the nation glued to their seats. The Sky at Night Tommorows world all have fell by the way side and replaced with the Glitzy raz ama taz that we see today.
While this is entertainig the masses it is not informing them of anything in particular and this I see as a problem. How difficult can it be for the BBC to host a show of inventions that can be assessed by a panel of commercial able individuals similiar to Dragons Den. Who would write the business plan. The next stage could be to secure funding and show how this can be achieved or have a prize to develop the product to a prototype using either scientists and technologists Take the Public into the Labs and workshops to show how products are designed made and refined. Then sell them. Like the X factor show sells records. If the masses can be shown how and what can be achieved with an idea and how the different aspects of science and commercial interests marry to make and develop new products and concepts then they may be more interested in the subject of science. The BBC have duty to inform the public. The spin off from such programmes could create the next generation of scientist.

Mark Steele

]]> Comment on Consultation Summary Report by Peter Green http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://interactive.bis.gov.uk/scienceandsociety/site/consultation/consultation-summary-report/comment-page-1/#comment-520 Peter Green Thu, 29 Jan 2009 14:26:00 +0000 http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://interactive.dius.gov.uk/scienceandsociety/site/?p=56#comment-520 AlphaGalileo is Europe's research news service, supported by DIUS as well as 9 other countries. We are pleased to see the significance of the media recognised and will be pleased to offer our expertise which is based on experience and a wide consultation exercise with the European media, research public relations staff and administrators. This demonstrated the need for action to support the key facilitators in this area: research bodies' press and media officers. This group are too often forgotten and initiatives aimed only at researchers and the media. Research public relations must be capable of taking its place alongside political, financial and cultural PR as a challenging and stimulating career for the best recruits to the PR industry. More and better media coverage of European research is crucial if we are to empower citizens to take part in dialogue, encourage more young people to value research and to secure the benefits in wealth creation from the technologies being developed. Public relations that is valued and well supported is a first step to enhanced media coverage. AlphaGalileo is Europe’s research news service, supported by DIUS as well as 9 other countries. We are pleased to see the significance of the media recognised and will be pleased to offer our expertise which is based on experience and a wide consultation exercise with the European media, research public relations staff and administrators. This demonstrated the need for action to support the key facilitators in this area: research bodies’ press and media officers. This group are too often forgotten and initiatives aimed only at researchers and the media.

Research public relations must be capable of taking its place alongside political, financial and cultural PR as a challenging and stimulating career for the best recruits to the PR industry.

More and better media coverage of European research is crucial if we are to empower citizens to take part in dialogue, encourage more young people to value research and to secure the benefits in wealth creation from the technologies being developed. Public relations that is valued and well supported is a first step to enhanced media coverage.

]]> Comment on Media by Science and Society » Blog Archive » Consultation Summary Report http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://interactive.bis.gov.uk/scienceandsociety/site/media/comment-page-1/#comment-514 Science and Society » Blog Archive » Consultation Summary Report Wed, 28 Jan 2009 09:18:24 +0000 http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://interactive.dius.gov.uk/scienceandsociety/site/?page_id=49#comment-514 [...] the media and scientists to work closely together on new science [...] [...] the media and scientists to work closely together on new science [...]

]]> Comment on Public awareness and engagement with science by Science and Society » Blog Archive » Consultation Summary Report http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://interactive.bis.gov.uk/scienceandsociety/site/public-awareness-and-engagement-with-science/comment-page-1/#comment-513 Science and Society » Blog Archive » Consultation Summary Report Wed, 28 Jan 2009 07:59:39 +0000 http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://interactive.dius.gov.uk/scienceandsociety/site/?page_id=48#comment-513 [...] science more relevant by making more people excited by and engaged in [...] [...] science more relevant by making more people excited by and engaged in [...]

]]> Comment on Developing scientific literacy by Dick Tindall http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://interactive.bis.gov.uk/scienceandsociety/site/consultation/developing-scientific-literacy/comment-page-1/#comment-98 Dick Tindall Sat, 11 Oct 2008 16:11:31 +0000 http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://interactive.dius.gov.uk/scienceandsociety/site/?p=14#comment-98 The problem goes deeper than the education system - which, of course, is not perfect. The general public are more educated in many quite complex non-scientific areas such as fashion, sport, music and many other subjects. These are the topics for everyday conversation and most people would be embarrassed to admit total ignorance. In contrast, I have heard Radio 4 presenters sounding proud when they say they have no grasp of a scientific topic. This is a cultural predjudice similar to (the now old-fashioned) racial predjudice, in that it makes blanket assumptions about all science and scientists, (difficult-dull-dangerous). As a start, some opinion leaders such as media presenters, perhaps even on Radio 1, should be made aware of the problem they are causing and asked to help by watching the way they talk. The problem goes deeper than the education system – which, of course, is not perfect.
The general public are more educated in many quite complex non-scientific areas such as fashion, sport, music and many other subjects.
These are the topics for everyday conversation and most people would be embarrassed to admit total ignorance.
In contrast, I have heard Radio 4 presenters sounding proud when they say they have no grasp of a scientific topic.
This is a cultural predjudice similar to (the now old-fashioned) racial predjudice, in that it makes blanket assumptions about all science and scientists, (difficult-dull-dangerous).
As a start, some opinion leaders such as media presenters, perhaps even on Radio 1, should be made aware of the problem they are causing and asked to help by watching the way they talk.

]]> Comment on Science Blogging by Famous for fifteen people « O’Really? at Duncan.Hull.name http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://interactive.bis.gov.uk/scienceandsociety/site/consultation/science-blogging/comment-page-1/#comment-41 Famous for fifteen people « O’Really? at Duncan.Hull.name Thu, 04 Sep 2008 14:48:27 +0000 http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://interactive.dius.gov.uk/scienceandsociety/site/?p=25#comment-41 [...] bods from DIUS, must have been Mike Rose? probably and Steph Gray, see DIUS sciblog report. I liked the demo of how to embed funky DIUS widgets in your website (techie note to self: [...] [...] bods from DIUS, must have been Mike Rose? probably and Steph Gray, see DIUS sciblog report. I liked the demo of how to embed funky DIUS widgets in your website (techie note to self: [...]

]]> Comment on Documents and links by UK government consults with public on science policy « The Plummet Onions http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://interactive.bis.gov.uk/scienceandsociety/site/download/comment-page-1/#comment-5 UK government consults with public on science policy « The Plummet Onions Thu, 24 Jul 2008 07:33:16 +0000 http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://interactive.dius.gov.uk/scienceandsociety/site/?page_id=5#comment-5 [...] on, Brits. This is our society, our government, and therefore our policies. Understanding them is a good thing. Submitting opinions is an even better [...] [...] on, Brits. This is our society, our government, and therefore our policies. Understanding them is a good thing. Submitting opinions is an even better [...]

]]>