The Science for All Expert Group, chaired by the Chief Executive of the Association, Sir Roland Jackson, published its report in February this year. It identified no fewer than thirty-nine purposes and eight motivations for public engagement as practised in the UK. These ranged from the altruistic: 'to be ethical, accountable and transparent', to the frankly self-interested: 'to enchance my career'.

The report pointed out that much public engagement activity is driven by institutional agendas (institutions being defined as businesses, public sector and third sector organisations) and described four forms of engagement. This is clearly a crowded and complex arena.

Where does the British Science Association fit, strategically, in this multiplicity of agendas?  A good starting point might be to ask whether, if the organisation didn’t already exist, it would be necessary to invent it.  You might, for instance, decide that a major national public event would be a high priority and that it should provide a European platform for scientists to showcase advances in science and engineering and to debate the issues they raise, directly and through the media.  Such an event would look remarkably like the British Science Festival.  You might go on to develop the concept of a nationwide grassroots celebration of science which would complement the Festival.  This would truly be ‘science for all’.  It would be organised locally but co-ordinated nationally, with as many events and participants as possible.  Such an event might appropriately be called ‘National Science and Engineering Week’.  It would be particularly well supported by an organisation with a regional structure and branches across the UK.

What about the young people, the scientists of the future?  How best to inspire them with science and provide them with opportunities for real hands-on experience of scientific investigations so that they are more likely to go on to the study of science at university and consider careers in science and engineering?  This is a tricky area but a national curriculum enrichment framework could well be the result of your deliberations.  This would be a national accreditation scheme for project work in science, engineering and technology and would operate at Gold, Silver and Bronze level, with awards at each level.  You might or might not call it the CREST Award scheme but that programme certainly fits the description – and the scheme also operates at primary level where, research tells us, the first enthusiasm for science is kindled; and as quickly lost if not nurtured appropriately.

Pondering further over the Science for All report you could well conclude that it was necessary to provide leadership to those involved in science communication by sharing best practice, encouraging innovation and improving the quality of engagement activities.  This would chime closely with several of the report’s recommendations for action and there are no prizes for guessing that it is a perfect description of the British Science Association’s Science in Society programme.

No doubt there are other activities which would usefully complement those I have described but I firmly believe that the Association’s four key programmes, supported by the regional and branch structure, are essential to a healthy science and society relationship in the UK.

Professor Lord May of Oxford , President

Annual Review 2009-2010

Previous Annual Reviews can be downloaded here.