Ian Pearson - Science Communication Conference
Institute of Engineering and Technology, London - 20 May 2008

Thank you, David [King], and good morning, everyone. It's a pleasure for me to kick off the second day of this conference, and I thank the BA for inviting me to take part.

Today I'd like to offer the Government's view on why broad public engagement with science is so important. To reflect on the substance and significance of some new and existing initiatives. And I want to update you on how the DIUS Science and Society strategy consultation is shaping up - in which communication is a central issue.

UK science

My first point about engagement is a simple one, but all too often overlooked. Exciting people about science is that much easier in a country with a track record as strong as ours, and sometimes we underplay that.

By any measure, the UK's research output is world-class. With just one per cent of the world's population, we carry out 4.5 per cent of the world's research and claim an eight per cent share of the world's scientific publications. That's second only to the US, and we actually lead the entire G8 on productivity and efficiency measures.

In a competitive global environment - where other countries are fast developing their research capabilities - the Government has made a sustained commitment to funding our research base. Over the current three-year spending period, the science budget is increasing by 17.4 per cent to almost £4 billion by 2011.

Why engagement matters

But for ordinary people, statistics on research papers and numbers on funding mean little. I think we should do much more to celebrate the achievements of our scientists: to broaden awareness beyond household names like Tim Berners-Lee; to develop more outstanding communicators like Robert Winston and Kathy Sykes. Indeed, doing so will only strengthen the case for public investment in UK science.

Of course, the main message we need to get across is this: that science improves our quality of daily life, underpins prosperity and increases our readiness to face the challenges of the future - climate change, human disease, global security.

Now, people in the UK place more confidence in the ability of scientists to solve such global challenges than the populations of many other EU countries. They are enthusiastic consumers of hi-tech products.

But that does not automatically equate to a healthy understanding of science, at a time when understanding has never been more vital.

Because GM foods and renewable energies should be debated openly, and that requires people appreciating the fundamental issues at stake.

Because a decent grasp of scientific method is essential in this age of information overload. As the late Carl Sagan observed, "Sceptical scrutiny is the means-by which deep insights can be winnowed from deep nonsense."

And because a well-informed and engaged public will increase demand for better science and hold ministers to account.

Nor do I exclude government itself from this analysis. Politicians and civil servants are by no means a breed apart. We too must access the best scientific evidence to inform sensible policy-making. Which is why the great majority of Whitehall departments now have a chief scientific adviser in post, who are opening up the process of policy development to quality input from the research base.

Public engagement in action

So, good communication around science is important for all of us: for children and adults, ministers and officials, physicists and sociologists.

How is it working in practice? My view is that the UK now leads the way in promoting a broad science and society agenda, including the use of dynamic public engagement.

We've come a long way since the Bodmer Report of the mid-80s, and some of the first, rather clumsy attempts to foster scientific understanding. Provision is now greatly improved, and I'm not only thinking of STEM teaching in schools and the support offered by industry, charitable foundations and the learned societies.

There are now over 100 science centres in the UK, and here in London, the Science and Natural History museums are leading attractions. There is a vibrant festival scene, and this year's Science and Engineering Week was the best yet, attracting some 1.4 million participants to around 3,500 events nationwide.

We should also take heart from the latest Public Attitudes to Science survey, published in March, which revealed broad public support for science. 82 per cent of people said they were amazed by the achievements of science, up from 75 per cent in 2000. And nearly 80 per cent believe people should take an interest in science, given its impact on their lives.

At the same time, the survey indicated a real appetite for consultation on scientific decision-making - and, from the scientific community itself, the wish to discuss their research, including all its social and ethical implications.

With this in mind, I want to mention three related areas of activity which regard proper dialogue as essential to effective engagement.

Sciencewise and the Expert Resource Centre

The first is Sciencewise, originally launched by Lord Sainsbury and now under the auspices of DIUS. Sciencewise has been instrumental in making high-quality, two-way conversations with the public a more regular feature of policy making. Through various projects involving emerging areas of science and technology, all parties to these conversations have benefited, whether they've addressed personal internet safety, the forensic use of DNA, or hybrid and chimera embryos - which I was voting on last night.

They've also been an object lesson in working collaboratively, with universities and the research councils, civil servants and consumer research firms all taking part in this.

I'm therefore delighted that, next week, my fellow DIUS minister Baroness Delyth Morgan is opening the Sciencewise Expert Resource Centre for Public Dialogue in Science and Innovation.

The new centre will build on the foundations laid by Sciencewise over the past four years in supporting informed policy making and involving key stakeholders in public engagement. It will serve not only as a hub for building communities of interest around new scientific fields, but provide an online portal providing information for a wide audience.

How Government accesses scientific advice

Second, we have recognised the need for cultural change in the way government accesses scientific advice. We have therefore asked the Council for Science and Technology for advice on how to achieve better and more productive engagement between universities and government departments to support policy making.

This is a two-sided challenge. Many academics - including those on the CST itself - give generously of their time and wisdom. But for others, particularly those at earlier stages in their careers, there may be a lack of awareness of the opportunities to apply research to policy, and to engage with government.

From our side, we must ensure that those opportunities exist, and are suitably valued. We must also look at whether we can improve the framework through which we seek input from universities. I'm confident that the CST will develop some innovative proposals to benefit both sides.

Beacons

The third initiative is Beacons for Public Engagement - which I helped to launch in January and you'll hear more about later. For while the Beacons have a broader remit than just science, I expect them to make a significant contribution in this area.

They represent an excellent opportunity for university scientists to build understanding beyond the campus and their own communities of scholars. To stimulate debate around the issues generated by stem cell research or nanotechnology, and inspire future generations of scientists. And to discover for themselves the extent of public comprehension and trust.

Trust, I might add, that should increase thanks to the growing impact of David King's excellent ethical code for scientists.

In Cardiff, for instance, plans are underway for the Beacon to undertake projects covering health and wellbeing, climate change and environmental sustainability. The projects recognise different concerns and levels of awareness among different groups, meaning that engagement techniques will vary according to age and location.

Science and Society Strategy update

Each of these examples - Sciencehorizons, the CST-led work, and the Beacons - are about bridging the gap between government, academia and the general public. Which brings me to the final part of my speech this morning, where I want to say something about the forthcoming Science and Society strategy.

In January, my colleague John Denham framed the challenge of public engagement in terms of C. P. Snow's famous "Two Cultures" argument. Yesterday, I hear that Melvyn Bragg also invoked Snow, and reflected on a value system in Britain where imagination is somehow the province of the arts - less so the sciences.

Cultural integration and a more expansive view of science are central to the new strategy. It sets out our ambition to develop a mature relationship between policy makers, the science community - in which I include business - and society, in the shape of the media, educators and ordinary people.

I want that relationship to be based on a better understanding of the aspirations and motivations of all concerned. And I want the breadth of scientific imagination to be widely appreciated.

Now, I'm unable to go into much detail ahead of the consultation paper, but I can offer you a flavour of the public engagement section - which is one of three key issues being explored.

I don't need to tell you here today that there are many organisations generating a great deal of activity - much of it excellent. But what's urgently needed is a unified focus on identifying common challenges and sharing best practice. This will not only raise our collective game, but ensure value for money.

Beyond greater coordination and coherence, there is real scope for being more professional in our approach. Reducing our dependence on voluntary activity and finding ways to make engagement a respected part of what scientists do for a living. We need to think hard about what incentives could encourage scientists to get more involved in communications, and consider what rewards should be available for the most effective individuals and schemes.

We also believe that government has an important leadership role - in particular to gather advice from leading practitioners on how to ensure that we deliver effective, widely-supported communications programmes.

Many of you here today have already been in discussions with my colleagues at DIUS ahead of the consultation, and I'm extremely grateful for your contributions. The formal document will shortly be posted on our website, but one of the reasons I'm here today is to ask that you don't simply respond in the traditional manner, but help us to generate meaningful discussion.

To establish what collaborative work already exists and suggest how we encourage more. To agree shared goals with organisations representing industry, and methods to measure the successfully delivery of programmes. To clarify the Government's responsibility and identify more productive ways of working with us.

Conclusion

I'll leave you with three of the questions we'll be posing in the section of the consultation on public engagement. I believe they're worth considering during today's proceedings.

First, how should the scientific and policy communities make science more interesting for the public?

Second, how can the media provide more accurate and balanced information that helps to improve scientific literacy?

And third, how do we communicate emerging scientific issues more effectively?

That's probably enough questions from me, but I hope they give you a sense of the challenges ahead for all of us with a vested interest in productive engagement: the science community, government and the public at large.

It only remains for me to stress that I'm happy to engage with you on this debate during the months ahead, and am now happy to answer any questions you may have.