Popular pages in this section...
Shorts: December 2010
Making it work
Recent research1 has shown that a public information campaign run by the Department of Health (DH) during the swine flu pandemic reassured the public and had some effect at changing behaviour.
Recent research1 has shown that a public information campaign run by the Department of Health (DH) during the swine flu pandemic reassured the public and had some effect at changing behaviour.
Dr James Rubin from King’s College London, one of the authors of the report, told People & Science, `We looked at a vast amount of telephone survey data collected by DH. We found there were very low levels of worry in the community. Over the course of the pandemic somewhere between 10 per cent and 30 per cent of respondents reported being worried about the risk of catching swine flu.’
He continued: `However, people who’d heard anything from DH advertising were more likely to carry tissues and more likely to have bought disinfectant hand gel. So the DH communications were effective at influencing behaviour, and the reason they were effective is because they increased the perceived efficacy of these behaviours.’
‘Our key recommendation for future campaigns is to focus on efficacy: “we’re recommending these behaviours because we know they work, and this is how they work and this is why they work.” That would really increase uptake among the general public.’
Faulty transmission
Dr Dean Marshall, a GP and one of the British Medical Association’s leads on swine flu has some concerns about how messages reach the public. He told People & Science: `I’m certainly reassured that the public campaign had an impact but we had people coming to GP practices asking for a vaccination, having been told by official announcements in the press that vaccinations were available when they weren’t.’
He continued: ` There was a lot of conflicting information and unfortunately journalists and the media have to accept a certain amount of criticism for publishing articles that were more opinion than fact. DH struggled to counter some of that. The evidence on the swine flu vaccination was that it was safe, which was the agreed position of all sides, and then we had a lot of stories about it being an untested vaccine that was unsafe.’
Crying wolf
James Rubin agrees that the government and media can be poor at communicating risk: `About 50 per cent of the public, consistently, thought people were making too much fuss out of swine flu. Our hunch is that they’ve been here too many times before. If you think of SARS or flesh-eating bacteria, or Y2K or the health risks of mobile phones, we’re constantly bombarding the public with messages about risks that don’t always materialise. So how do we convince people that actually, this time we do really mean it?’
1 Health Technology Assessment 2010; 14: 34, pp.183–266
Pros and cons of public engagement
As US researchers announce the first safety trials based on human embryonic stem cells of a treatment for spinal injuries, new research1 on public engagement (PE) and stem cell research has found PE activities have `considerable scope to (re)build trust in science.’
As US researchers announce the first safety trials based on human embryonic stem cells of a treatment for spinal injuries, new research1 on public engagement (PE) and stem cell research has found PE activities have `considerable scope to (re)build trust in science.’
Dr Sarah Parry of Edinburgh University and her colleagues organised a PE event to see whether dialogue between scientists and others could increase trust in science. They recorded scientists and members of the public discussing the regulation of stem cell research and the Hwang affair, in which a South Korean stem cell researcher admitted fraud. They analysed discussion transcripts to understand factors behind trust in science and found that the event’s ethic of mutual respect favoured a presumption of trust between the scientists and non-scientists taking part.
Gagging views
However, Parry warned: `We should be very cautious about using public engagement to rebuild trust, because [it] exists in a wider political context, in which particular world views are privileged, particularly those of scientists. Public engagement should not be about consensus building, [which is] actually a mechanism for silencing people.’
Against consensus
Professor Andy Stirling of the University of Sussex offers an alternative to consensus-building for science policy PE.2 He told People & Science: `If you aim to illuminate different possible answers, equally valid, from the exercise, then people relax more and they’ll be more able to say “yes, we disagree majorly on factor X but on A, B and C we absolutely agree”.’
He continued: `We [shouldn’t] say: “Embryonic stem cells, shall we do it or not?” We [should] say: “Well, under these conditions and views, then this would be the right kind of way of handling it, but under these conditions and views, that would be the right way. We can tell you in some detail why that is, but we can’t tell the political process which of those is definitely the way to go, because we didn’t actually agree on it.” It is elected politicians who should be accountable for the final decision.’
Discounting public views
Dr Charles Thorpe of the University of California and and Dr Jane Gregory of University College London see another danger. Their recently published work3 concerns PE and nanotechnology. Thorpe told People & Science: `I’m all for public engagement, but there’s a fundamental tension between a market imperative to develop [new] technologies and the desire to genuinely involve the public in the shaping of science and technology. [The problem is] not that the public can be manipulated, it’s that the public can be ignored.’
1 S. Bates, W. Faulkner, S. Parry and S. Cunningham-Burley (2010) How do we know it’s not been done yet?! Trust, trust building and regulation in stem cell research. Science as Public Policy (forthcoming)
2 A. Stirling (2008) Engaging Futures: ‘opening up’ choices on science and technology in The Road Ahead: Public dialogue on science and technology. Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, London. 2008. http://tinyurl.com/2vjtnfz
3 C. Thorpe and J. Gregory (2010) Producing the Post-Fordist Public: The Political Economy of Public Engagement with Science. Science as Culture (forthcoming). DOI: 10.3152/030234210X12778118264495 http://tinyurl.com/27vux3w
 Dr Joanna Carpenter is the Shorts Editor
|
Join the debate...
You might also like to visit...
Twitter latest
-
I FINALLY got around to contributing #HandsOnDNA to the @BritSciAssociat #collectivememory: t.co/5mDnAK3GpA did I miss anything?
-
Tomorrow's guest on #TheLifeScientific is John Krebs (Baron Krebs FRS, zoologist, ex head of FSA, current president of @BritSciAssociat )
-
#AskTheExperts13: @astro_timpeake answers young people's questions for @NSECUK - t.co/ggTgr9wf4p via @BritSciAssociat
