Tracey Brown on the perils of a big idea

Amid the frantic bustle of an office trying to respond to more requests for help than it could ever hope to handle, I find myself taking stock a bit of late about what it is that people want or respond to in science. 

Out there is the public that appears in grant applications and haunts the dreams of nervous policymakers. In our office, we deal in a day-to-day-way with people’s questions and frustrations. The inconsistency here seems magnified when we have some in the policy world seeking a big splash approach to engaging people in science. A growing huddle seems to be gathering on the top diving board, emboldened by the reorganisation of departments and funding, looking for that splash, uncertain which way to jump to get it. 

Concrete questions

A run-through of our enquiries shows that questions roughly fall into four groups. The first is: Help me get to grips with it. (‘Should parents be worried?’ – midwife on plasticisers in baby’s bottles; ‘Do scientists do any work on this kind of thing?’ – PTA on option to site wind turbine on school.) The second is how much we know. (‘What do the scientists actually know about this?’ – local residents’ association on chemical residues in brown-field site; ‘Can I find out what tests have been done?’ – education writer on WiFi). The third is on the balance of opinion (‘Do these people represent the majority of scientific opinion?’ – youth club on drugs following a Newsnight programme; ‘How are scientists split? – a County Council on fluoride.) Finally, questions concern legitimacy. (‘Is it a proper study? – self-help group on stories about underarm deodorants causing cancer; ‘Are they only listening to one group of scientists?’ – conservation group on fishing quota.) 

Science as add-on

People seem to like lay versions of scientific discussions for hobbies (such as popular science books about discovering DNA) but not when it comes to claims they encounter in the news or in policy matters such as healthcare, child safety or planning restrictions. In these cases, the interest is in additional insights that scientific reasoning can provide.

Probably our biggest surprise is the thousands of requests my colleagues have handled for information about quality and peer review. What seems to appeal to non-scientists is that you don’t, for example, have to become a gastroenterologist to ask about the status of claims regarding the MMR and autism.

People usually aren’t looking to be alternative experts or for a remaking of their relationship to science per se, but for scientific reasoning and indications about the status of research claims to be brought into their discussions. They don’t want to be immersed in specialist deliberations or sent back to school – just to know what a scientific perspective or a specialist’s knowledge can contribute to their own way of looking at something.

Sometimes scientific views and a bit of public scrutiny can blow a claim apart, as with the pseudoscience conveyed alongside ‘brain gym’ in primary schools. Other times, its contribution is more limited, as in the marijuana debate where parents and schools are asking about evidence for long-term mental health effects, but the contribution of scientific research is just one part of a deliberation that takes in other concerns such as who their teenagers hang out with. 

No big idea

So: Don’t Jump! The idea that some kind of one-size-fits-all winning idea is going to set out the terms of a relationship between the public and science is likely to be a fiction. It comes about when people obsess about forming relationships in some abstract way, rather than forming them in the process of addressing particular questions and debates (like foetal viability or the point of 100ml restrictions on shampoo at airports).

Different relationships and changed views on all sides are formed in the pursuit of these questions. We need a variety of approaches rather than to go in search of one single formula for engagement to stamp on everything. Of course there’s scope for big splash initiatives, but the relationship between science and society is not going to be recast in a singular way. Without any clear focus or purpose, big splash could turn out to be small puddle.

Get off the diving board, get into the water.

Tracey Brown is Director of Sense AboutScience