We live in a time when the scientific establishment, and its government and commercial paymasters, are voicing concern about the relationship between science and the public. The call is for improvements in this relationship through an increase in what is variously described as approval, appreciation or understanding of science by the public. In order to improve the public understanding of science, scientists should communicate with the public.

Although critics suggest that what should be communicated, and why, are far from clear, the "public understanding of science movement" has charged into the arena of science in public. Alongside the long-standing public and amateur activity in science there are now events, from festivals to consensus conferences, set up with the explicit aim of furthering the public understanding of science. While much of this originates with the scientific community, and is not coy about aiming for the public appreciation of
science, some activity arises from public groups or individuals who are dissatisfied with science.

But changing times have left a legacy of confusion about the role of the scientist in society, and in particular about the scientist's responsibilities in the public communication of science. Political and social circumstances have shaped the changing relationship between scientist and the public, and different motivations at different times have impacted upon the content, style and audience for science communication. New media, and new mediators, have complicated the picture in the post-war era.

The media's role in the public understanding of science has been much criticized by scientists. Examinations of the professional and social forces at work reveal a high degree of collaboration and mutual reliance between scientists and journalists, even though the differences between journalistic
and scientific practices can sometimes lead to uncomfortable friction. The media do provide the forum in which the relationship between science and the public is constructed and pursued, and it is in this forum that the public make moral judgements about science. However, despite the media's activity in the communication of science, they have no brief or responsibility for improving the public understanding of science, and in some cases are ill-suited to the task. Whether media science has any impact on public
knowledge about or attitudes to science is a question that effects research has yet to answer.

Detailed examination of particular cases of media science reveal the many strategies and agendas that are at work in science in public. From nineteenth century didactic entertainments have grown media campaigns where science politics are played out in public. One thing is clear: in contemporary western society, media science is often "science-in-the-making." While science is in the making, the "right answer" is unavailable to everyone including the scientists, and anyone who claims to know it deserves public scepticism if not distrust. In such cases, the scientific literacy enterprise, in terms of knowledge or understanding, is
beside the point.

Science often meets the public in times of crisis. Their relationship is conducted fleetingly and acutely through mass media which emphasize emotion in place of what are often rather scarce "facts." And when scientists can not agree on a solution to a scientific problem, it is not surprising that the public turns to moral or emotional solutions in order to get on with their lives. The highly charged environment pushes everyone involved to extreme practical measures and to polarized points of view, and often results in a breakdown of both trust and communication between political and scientific authorities and the publics they purport to serve. Studies of risk communication suggest that responses to risk situations are informed by many factors other than the simply scientific, and that finding a place for a scientific point of view may be achieved more through negotiation within social systems than by pronouncements of "facts."

Science has long been subject to scrutiny from many different quarters. In recent years, critiques of science emerging from the social sciences and humanities, and the apparently growing popularity of alternative sciences, have been construed by some scientists as an "anti-science movement." This movement, they feel, threatens to undermine science and to deceive the public into false and dangerous beliefs. This may be true of some critiques, which claim to offer an all-embracing alternative to scientific knowledge. Most, however, actually offer understandings of science that look at both laboratory practice and social, personal and political contexts - the contexts in which the public experiences science. And while these understandings may cast doubt on the hypothetico-deductivist "standard account" of the scientific method, they make few if any charges against the reliability of scientific knowledge; nor do they question its value to modern society.

Much discussion of the public understanding of science rests on simplistic models of "public", "understanding," and "communication," and remains tacit on the question of the motivations for and gains to be had from the public communication of science. However, researchers have revealed complex mixtures of motives in scientists’ communications, among which improving public understanding can play a minor and sometimes incidental part. Models of the public and their understanding have developed from the passive and empty "black box" to an active, discriminating body accommodating, should it so choose, information within its own cultural framework. Models of communication too have become more complex as the transmitter-receiver descriptions have failed to account for the variety of interactions observed
between communicator and audience.

In Science in Public (Plenum, 1998) we have looked at the work of popularizers and at the workings of the media, and we have brought together the work of scientists, sociologists, historians and philosophers who have all given a great deal of thought to the issues of public understanding of science. So how might these people's ideas might be translated into a fully rounded approach to science communication which meets the requirements of all concerned - scientists, communicators and the public? What follows is our contribution to producing a protocol for communication for the public understanding of science.

ACKNOWLEDGING THE PLACE OF POPULARIZATION

Popularization is an essential and an integral part of the scientific enterprise. Scientists use popular accounts and popular media to reach each other, and even writing up a piece of research for a scientific journal involves a certain amount of "popularisation" - of writing for people who do not know what they are going to read, and writing in a way which matches their expectations and suits their background and sensibilities. Scientists take for granted that the scientific paper is not literally true: it is not a blow-by-blow account of what happened in the culture dish or under the telescope dome. But the scientific paper is truthful even though it is written to a formula which deliberately distorts the literal truth in order to make the research accessible to other scientists. So popular accounts of science should not be viewed as somehow "untrue," merely because they, too, have to leave out a lot and simplify what they include to match the expectations and abilities of their audiences.

In some instances, what is science-in-the-making finds its way into the public arena. Even for uncontroversial subjects, part of the process of legitimation and acceptance of scientific knowledge may be the incorporation of the concepts and insights of science into everyday consciousness and parlance; the line between scientific knowledge and common sense is a historically moving one.1

There is no clear boundary between what is and is not "popular" science as opposed to any other science. Nor can the audiences for these communications be delineated exactly. The scientific community should therefore treat popular science as seriously as science in any other form. After all, if they do not, why should the public?

BEING CLEAR ABOUT MOTIVES

Almost without exception, the best scientist-communicators feel, and are able to communicate, enthusiasm for the work they do and for the subject they love. But pure enthusiasm is rarely the only motive for communicating science. The purpose of a science communication may be to empower its recipients, to enhance existing democratic processes or help develop new ones where they do not exist, or to prevent the alienation of sections of society; but it may also be to serve the interests of the scientific community and their paymasters.

Scientists communicating science to the public should therefore make their motivations clear. If they do not, the public could usefully ask. The media have responsibilities here, too. Independent science journalists have a duty not to allow themselves to be used to promote this or the other faction in a
dispute over the facts, implications or worth of a piece of science. If straightforward public relations is the purpose of the communication, then this should too be plain.

We have already referred to the benefits which might follow from increasing the public understanding of science, as collated by Thomas and Durant.2 If the aim of the communication is to further the public understanding of science, then thinking about whether it affords any of these benefits might be fruitful.

People have their own reasons for paying attention to science; collectively and as individuals, the public therefore has a responsibility to be explicit about their own motives for understanding science. If they are not, scientists may find it difficult to know what is expected of them.

RESPECTING THE AUDIENCE

One of the purposes of science communication is to impart knowledge in a form that can be assimilated by the intended audience. This approach requires due consideration and respect for that audience. While they were writing The Science of Life, H.G. Wells gave Julian Huxley some good advice:

The reader for whom you write is just as intelligent as you are but does not possess your store of knowledge, he is not to be offended by a recital in Technical language of things known to him
(e.g. telling him the position of the heart and lungs and backbone). He is not a student preparing for
an examination & he does not want to be encumbered with technical terms, his sense of literary form & his sense of humour is probably greater than yours. Shakespeare, Milton, Plato, Dickens, Meredith, T.H. Huxley, Darwin wrote for him. None of them are known to have talked of putting in "popular stuff" & "treating them to pretty bits" or alluded to matters as being "too complicated to discuss here".  If they were, they didn't discuss them there and that was the end of it.3

Successful communication requires at least some grasp of technique: audiences expect and deserve competence. Few scientists are expert communicators, and many, finding themselves suddenly amateurs in the field of science communication, have usefully learnt a few new skills for the job. There are now several agencies and professional organisations who provide short courses on science communication, and there are a number of useful books in this field.4 Books aimed at journalists, or books which feature
discussions on the relationship between scientists and journalists can also give scientists and the public who use the mass media useful insights into the worlds of the popular press, television and radio.5 Many higher education institutions - UCL among them - provide courses in communication skills for young scientists, so the coming generation will have no excuse for not having the wherewithal to talk about their work to the public.

NEGOTIATING NEW KNOWLEDGE, UNDERSTANDING AND ATTITUDES

According to the "deficit model" of public understanding of science, the scientific community is the source - and, by and large, the censor - of the information that is transmitted in a one-way stream to the public. The
contextual approach, on the other hand, tries to take account of the particular circumstances of the recipients of scientific information and of their existing knowledge and beliefs. Sometimes - for a straightforward talk, article or broadcast - the deficit model may well be the more appropriate. After all, most communication is about someone telling someone else something they did not already know, and the context may be unknown. But many case studies indicate that the straightforward "facts" of the matter do not always answer the questions that people tend to ask. No matter how straightforward the science, the recipient of the communication will be a complex human being whose background, beliefs, and sensibilities play a large part in their reactions to scientific knowledge.

Communication is a process of negotiation: it is one of a mutual getting-to-know. Science communication is a process of generating new, mutually acceptable knowledge, attitudes and practices. It is a dynamic
exchange, as disparate groups find a way of sharing a single message. Negotiation is a two-way process: if the public's needs are to be met, they must articulate what these needs are.

ESTABLISHING A BASIS FOR TRUST

Key to the relationship between science and the public is trust, and that trust is established through the negotiation of a mutual understanding, rather than through statements of authority or of facts. Responsibility for the trust vested in a community rests both with the institutions of science and with each individual member; it is hard won and easily lost.

Science has every right to defend its role as a provider of "reliable knowledge" in our society. Indeed, it has a duty to account for itself if it is to maintain the public's trust. This position does not imply or require
that knowledge can not be arrived at by other means, however. Western science is not the only practical base from which to solve the world's problems; and respect for local culture and the assimilation of local
knowledge are vital if the application of inappropriate or socially disruptive technologies is to be avoided.

Science is undoubtedly powerful - perhaps the most powerful of all forms of knowledge, in terms of its effect on our daily lives and social structures. Appreciating the power of science is not merely an interesting academic pastime, but an activity essential to the well-being of society. So, too, is
appreciating the limitations of science, in terms of what questions it can or cannot usefully answer.

One of the key features of science is its inherent provisionality. In the area of science-in-the-making, this provisionality is the essential feature of scientific knowledge. It is surely much better for scientists to
acknowledge this so that the public and their representatives can make the best use of what information is available, from whatever source.

At various times, journalists have drawn up questions to ask scientists, designed to lay the basis for a genuinely trustworthy process of communication between them and the public: How do you know? Are you just telling us something you "know" or have "observed" or "found to be true"? Or have you done or found any studies or experiments? How and where did you get your data? How accurate are your numbers?
How reproducible are your results? Have they been consistent from study to study?What is your degree of certainty or uncertainty by accepted tests? How can you be sure about conclusions? Are there any possible flaws or problems in them? Who disagrees with you? And why?6These are questions that scientists ought to be prepared to answer, as honestly as they can, and that the public ought to be prepared to ask.

ACKNOWLEDGING THE SOCIAL IN SCIENCE

Science is one of the major cultural achievements of our species and it is right and proper that science should be subject to detailed social scrutiny, by academics and the public. Carrying out social, cultural and historical critiques of science does not equate with being "anti-science." Scientists themselves should be part of this questioning process.

Analysing the practices of science and scientists - how scientists conduct their arguments, how concepts develop within the limitations of individuals and the society in which they operate, how policy issues affect and are influenced by research - can not only be helpful in deepening general public understanding of science, but can also be beneficial to scientists wanting to know how they got where they are, and where they might be going. Studies of social influences can usefully alert scientists to the possibility that
"bad science" can result from racial, gender and cultural prejudices.

Accepting that science may be criticized from various social standpoints in no way implies support for the position of "nothing-buttery" - the notion that science is "nothing but a socially constructed discourse." The fact that there are inevitably social influences on the work of scientists and on the construction of scientific knowledge does not mean, either, that such knowledge is somehow less valuable or less useful. Society has enabled humanity not only to survive as a species, but also to accumulate reliable knowledge of, and wisdom about, the world in which we live. Whether socially constructed or not, scientific knowledge mostly seems to work.

Like their colleagues in the natural sciences, social scientists have a duty to popularize their work, even when their conclusions are not quite to scientists’ taste. Nor is it incumbent on those who criticize science from a social standpoint to produce an alternative. Neither theatre critics nor literary reviewers are required to out-perform their subjects; and actors and authors take note when they so choose. And it is not disputed that the public sphere is the proper place for both the performance and the criticism.

Scientists should be free to investigate the natural and social worlds as they see fit (within the laws of the land); they have a duty to communicate more than just the "bare facts" of science. As responsible citizens, they should be prepared to bring out the social implications of their own and their colleagues’ work, voicing their optimism and enthusiasm where appropriate and their concerns and reservations where they have them. They are, surely, among the better placed to do this.

FACILITATING PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

The business of science has, of necessity, become highly professionalised. But at the same time, the results of science have been more and more socialised in terms of the impact they have on the public, through changing beliefs, practices or lifestyles. The public have a right to know about science not simply because they pay for much of it, but because of its central importance in the modern world. The public are also interested in science: there is popular enthusiasm for knowing about science, in terms of the facts and theories it produces, and interest in understanding how those facts and theories come about.

Scientists thus have a duty to explain their work to the best of their ability - even if some of it sometimes requires the suspension of current common-sense thinking - and to be open about the potential, limitations and practices of science. Scientists have a right to defend in public their ability to do research irrespective of the social uses to which that research has been or may be put. In the end, however, questions of which
research will be supported and how the results will be used should - and will - be decided in the public sphere. That places considerable responsibilities not only on the scientific community and professional
communicators, but on the public as well. If citizens are to fulfil their responsibilities in this area, communications that they receive about science - at least when that science is provisional and potentially
controversial - have to be designed to facilitate their participation in the social processes of debate and decision-making. The type of communication designed to bring about an awestruck admiration for the mysterious men in white coats is not what we need for the challenges of the twenty-first century.

When dealing with the public understanding of science, we are entering a number of different territories. Each of them - science, the media, and the public sphere - represents for the inhabitants of the other two a largely unknown land. Like unworldly tourists these groups are inclined to believe that if they speak their own language slowly and loudly, they will make themselves understood; sometimes, like imperialists in an annexed land, they presume that everyone else is a savage. Just as travellers abroad have learnt to understand another culture on its own terms (and have, perhaps, even read the guidebook before they set out), so might scientists, journalists and the public tread a little more lightly on each others toes
if they got acquainted first.

If there is any take-home message, it is that the entities involved in the public understanding of science are much more complicated that the movement's rhetoric implies. Simply acknowledging this complexity would be, we believe, a step forward; understanding that complexity, while a daunting task, has been made easier by the considerable body of work coming from the social sciences and from communications research. Accessing these ideas could go some considerable way towards helping scientists understand the
public, and the public to understand science.

Enquiries about Science in Public should be sent to Plenum@compuserve.com

1. Harry Collins, review of The Unnatural Nature of Science, by Lewis Wolpert, Public Understanding of Science 2 (1993), pp. 261-264.

2. Geoffrey Thomas and John Durant, "Why should we promote the public understanding of science," Scientific Literacy Papers 1 (1987), pp. 1-14.

3. H.G. Wells in Huxley p. 165.

4. See for example, David Lindsay, A Guide to Scientific Writing: Manual for Students and Research Workers (Melbourne: Longman Cheshire, 1984) and Maeve O'Connor, Writing Successfully in Science (London: Harper Collins, 1991), for manuals for writing scientific papers and theses; and, for example,
Stephen White, Peter Evans, Chris Mihill and Marylyn Tysoe, Hitting the Headlines: a Practical Guide to the Media (Leicester: The British Psychological Society, 1993) and Michael Shortland and Jane Gregory,
Communicating Science: a handbook (New York: Wiley, 1991), for guides to communicating through the mass media and directly with the public.

5. See, for example, Tim Albert, Medical Journalism: the writer's guide (Oxford: Radcliffe Medical press, 1992), Deborah Blum and Mary Knudson eds., A Field Guide for Science Writers: the Official Guide of the National Association of Science Writers (New York: Oxford University Press, 1997) and Sharon M. Friedman, Sharon Dunwoody and Carol L. Rogers(eds.), Scientists and Journalists: reporting science as news (New York: The Free Press, 1986).

6. See, for example, Victor Cohn, "Coping with Statistics," in A Field Guide for Science Writers: the official guide of the National Association of Science Writers, ed. D. Blum and M. Knudson), (New York: Oxford University Press, 1997), p. 103.