Why do we need to communicate science? Is science, with its highly specialised language and its arcane methods, too distant to be understood by the public? Is it really possible for citizens to participate meaningfully in scientific research projects and debate? Should scientists be mandated to engage with the public to facilitate better understanding of science? How can they best communicate their special knowledge to be intelligible? These and a plethora of related questions are being raised by researchers and politicians alike as they have become convinced that science and society need to draw nearer to one another. Once the persuasion took hold that science should open up to the public and these questions were raised, it became clear that coming up with satisfactory answers would be a complex challenge. The inaccessibility of scientific language and methods, due to ever increasing specialisation, is at the base of its very success. Thus, translating specialised knowledge to become understandable, interesting and relevant to various publics creates particular perils. This is exacerbated by the ongoing disruption of the public discourse through the digitisation of communication platforms. For example, the availability of medical knowledge on the internet and the immense opportunities to inform oneself about health risks via social media are undermined by the manipulable nature of this technology that does not allow its users to distinguish between credible content and misinformation. In countries around the world, scientists, policy-makers and the public have high hopes for science communication: that it may elevate its populations educationally, that it may raise the level of sound decision-making for people in their daily lives, and that it may contribute to innovation and economic well-being. This collection of current reflections gives an insight into the issues that have to be addressed by research to reach these noble goals, for South Africa and by South Africans in particular.
Informations légales : prix de location à la page 0,1600€. Cette information est donnée uniquement à titre indicatif conformément à la législation en vigueur.
Extrait
SCIENCE COMMUNICATION IN SOUTH AFRICA Reflections on Current Issues
Edited by Peter Weingart, Marina Joubert & Bankole Falade
SCIENCE COMMUNICATION IN SOUTH AFRICA
Reflections on Current Issues
Edîted by Peter Weîngart, Marîna Joubert & Bankoe Faade
AFRICAN MINDS
Pubîsed în 2019 by Arîcan Mînds 4 Ecceston Pace, Somerset West 7130, Cape Town, Sout Arîca îno@arîcanmînds.org.za www.arîcanmînds.org.za
Fundîng acknowedgement: hîs work îs based on te researc supported by te Sout Arîcan Researc Caîrs ïnîtîatîve o te Department o Scîence and Tecnoogy and Natîona Researc Foundatîon o Sout Arîca (grant number 93097). Any opînîon, Indîng and concusîon or recom-mendatîon expressed în tîs materîa îs tat o te autors and te NRF does not accept any îabîîty în tîs regard.
hîs work îs pubîsed under a Creatîve Commons Attrîbutîon 4.0 ïnternatîona îcense
ïSBN Paper 978-1-928502-03-6 ïSBN eBook 978-1-928502-04-3 ïSBN ePub 978-1-928502-05-0
hequackeryvîrus:ApreîmînaryanaysîsopseudoscîentîIceat messages on TwîtterGeorge Claassen 150 heampîIcatîonouncertaînty:heuseoscîenceîntesocîamedîa by te antî-vaccînatîon movementFrançois van Scalkwyk 170
Wyîmpactevauatîonmattersînscîencecommunîcatîon:Or, advancîng te scîence o scîence communîcatîon Eric Allen Jensen
About te edîtors and te autors
îîî
213
229
Acknowledgement
hîs book was made possîbe by and was pubîsed under te auspîces o te Sout Arîcan Researc Caîr în Scîence Communîcatîon osted by te Centre or Researc on Evauatîon, Scîence and Tecnoogy (CREST), Steenbosc Unîversîty. We tank te Department o Scîence and Tecnoogy (DST) and te Natîona Researc Foundatîon (NRF) or teîr generous support.
îv
Introduction1 Peter Weingart, Marina Joubert & Bankole Falade
Why science communication?
To understand te surge o actîvîtîes nowadays termed ‘scîence communîcatîon one as to get a sense o te voume and speed o deveopment o scîence over te ast century, as we as îts pace în socîety. Scîence, weter measured în terms o scîentîsts or în terms o scîentîIc pubîcatîons, as grown exponentîay sînce te bîrt o modern scîence în te ate 17t century. Wîe tîs dynamîc growt went unnotîced or a wîe, startîng out rom just a ew aderents to te new ways o gaînîng knowedge, ît became a subject o systematîc reLectîon ony în te mîdde o te 20t century wen te US îstorîan o scîence and ater o bîbîometrîcs amousy noted tat 90% o a scîentîsts tat ad ever îved were aîve at present (Prîce, 1963). Even toug scîentîsts (and engîneers) ad aready contrîbuted consîderaby to economîc deveopment durîng te ate 19t century, teîr numbers and teîr împact on socîetîes reay began to matter poîtîcay and economîcay durîng and ater te Fîrst Word War. ït was not untî ater te Second Word War tat scîence poîcy became a separate Ied o poîcy-makîng, Irst în te US, and ten în Europe, Japan and Austraîa. Untî ten scîence was an actîvîty carrîed out în reatîve îsoatîon rom te rest o socîety. Scîentîsts communîcated among temseves, wîtîn teîr dîscîpî-nary communîtîes and în anguages tat became more and more
1
SCïENCE COMMUNïCATïON ïN SOUTH AFRïCA
opaque as teîr Ieds became ever more specîaîsed. Scîence was, în te words o Don K. Prîce,exceptionalîn te sense tat ît was te ony înstîtutîon tat receîved pubîc unds wîtout avîng to account or ît (Prîce, 1965). hîs exceptîonaîsm began to ade aready în te mîd-1950s wen arge tecnoogy projects – cîvîîan nucear power, aerospace and data processîng – îgîgted te economîc utîîty o scîence (and tecnoogy). he Irst attempts at împrovîng te ‘pubîc understandîng o scîence în te US were motîvated prîmarîy by concerns reated to te Cod War: an apparent ack o STEM students treatenîng te efort o te country to prevaî în te competîtîon or tecnoogîca eadersîp and te need to secure pubîc support or te space programme. hese two motîves o scîence poîcy ave become generaîsed beyond te orîgîna context, tey underîe scîence communîcatîon poîcîes în vîrtuay a countrîes tat ave suc poîcîes, and tey are present to tîs day to contrîbute to înnovatîon and to secure pubîc acceptance o pubîc expendîtures or scîence, as we as te împementatîon o new tecnoogîes. Pubîc acceptance o expendîtures or scîentîIc researc was partîcuary crîtîca. he ten domînant so-caed ‘înear mode o înnovatîon stîpuated tat a economîc înnovatîon emerged rom prîor basîc researc, tat te dîrectîon o suc researc was to be determîned by scîentîsts ony, and tat te outcome o researc coud not be predîcted (Bus, 1945). hîs consteatîon was at te eart o te exceptîonaîsm o scîence, and ît was supported by te poîtîca context în wîc te reedom o scîence was to symboîse te superîorîty o te West. he need to secure pubîc consent became more urgent as scîence budgets grew to poîtîcay vîsîbe dîmensîons, utîmatey reacîng 2–3% o GDP în te weatîer 1 countrîes. Consequenty, te genera pubîc, în te orm o te eectorate, ad to be addressed to trust te scîentîIc communîtys decîsîons and to egîtîmate R&D expendîtures. he genera pubîc ad been addressed by scîentîsts ong beore.
ïn act, at te începtîon o modern scîence, scîentîsts attempted to capture te înterest and ascînatîon o te arîstocracy on wîc tey depended or support. Durîng te second a o te 19t century te popuarîsatîon o scîence amost became a separate proessîon. Aexander von Humbodt, addressîng te educated bourgeoîsîe and te workîng cass în îs Kosmos ectures, turned out to be te înstîgator o te Irst ‘scîence centreavant la lettre, te Uranîa în Berîn. he spîrît o popuarîsatîon tat was very muc aso a spîrît o enîgtenment wîc coud trîve as ong as te scîence o te day was ‘accessîbe to te ay pubîc, at east în prîncîpe, a condîtîon tat eroded wît te încreasîng abstractness o concepts, anguage and subject matters în many Ieds eraded by quantum mecanîcs at te begînnîng o te 20t century (Bensaude-Vîncent, 2001). he advent o ‘pubîc understandîng o scîence was tus carac-terîsed by a mîx o motîves: economîc, poîtîca, egîtîmatîon and enîgtenment o te pubîc. Over te years many actors ave joîned în eforts to împrove te pubîcs understandîng o scîence, but to tîs day tere îs no consensus among scoars about îts goas, or about te crîterîa o success or aîure (ewensteîn, 2003: 1). ïn 1985, te Brîtîs Roya Socîety pubîsed îts so-caed Bodmer Reporturged te ‘Economîc and Socîa Researc wîc Councî (ESRC) and oter approprîate bodîes to devîse metods o monîtorîng attîtudes to scîence în te Unîted Kîngdom (Bodmer, 1985: 31). More tan tree decades sînce îts pubîca-tîon tere are stî no adequate metods în pace, nor are efectîve steps undertaken, to evauate te many actîvîtîes tat are carrîed out under te abe o scîence communîcatîon (Sort, 2013: 40). hîs state o afaîrs îs reLected în a îvey debate pubîsed în a number o scoary journas ounded sînce te ate 1970s (Science Communicationîn 1979;Public Understanding of Scienceîn 1992; Journal of Science Communication [JCOM]în 2002). he orîgîna concerns among scîentîsts ocused on te knowedge among te pubîc o basîc scîentîIc concepts, teorîes and metods. Surveys desîgned to gauge tat knowedge (Irst by te US Natîona Scîence Foundatîon) ound tat te pubîcs understandîng o
3
SCïENCE COMMUNïCATïON ïN SOUTH AFRïCA
scîence (PUS) – as deIned by tem – was extremey îmîted. ït was beîeved tat by îdentîyîng suc ‘deIcîts o scîentîIc ‘îteracy te respectîve educatîona programmes coud remedy tîs state and, as a resut, by împrovîng te pubîcs understandîng, tîs woud aso resut în generay posîtîve attîtudes toward scîence. he so-caed ‘deIcît-mode underyîng te PUS approac was subsequenty crîtîcîsed bot or îts sîmpîstîc assumptîons o înormatîon processîng, but aso or îts paternaîstîc outook on te reatîonsîp between scîence and te pubîc. As tîme went by, te academîc dîscussîon o te rîgt and efectîve ormat as moved rom te deIcît mode to te ‘contextua, te ‘ay expertîse and Inay te ‘pubîc partîcîpatîon modes (ewensteîn, 2003). he îterto atest deveopment în tîs evoutîon o scîence communîcatîon îs te concept o ‘pubîc engagement wît scîence and tecnoogy (PEST) wîc propagates ‘dîaogîca ormats between scîence and te pubîc, actîve partîcîpatîon o cîtîzens în scîence poîcy decîsîon-makîng and even în researc projects (Lagged as ‘cîtîzen scîence) (Smaman, 2018; Stîgoe et a., 2014). hus, te trajectory rom ‘deIcît to ‘dîaogue appears to be one o greater proxîmîty o scîence to te pubîc, o ‘încusîon î not o a democratîsed reatîonsîp. However, te reaîty on te ground ooks muc more modest, and te acuna between ît and te oty retorîc o scîence poîcy programmes and îdeaîstîc scîentîsts îs te ratîonae or a ‘scîence o scîence communîcatîon (NAS, 2017).
Some challenges to science communication
Scîence communîcatîon programmes ave become part o scîence poîcy or more tan tree decades în vîrtuay a deveoped and în some deveopîng countrîes, suc as Sout Arîca. Yet, în spîte o te consîderabe cost încurred, tere îs stî no serîous evauatîon o teîr efectîveness. Surveys o trust în scîence ave remaîned metodoogîcay weak and are rarey înked dîrecty to partîcuar communîcatîon programmes. hîs abstînence can be expaîned by at east two actors. Fîrst, tere are a mutîtude o dîferent
4
1 ïNTRODUCTïON
motîves tat drîve scîence communîcatîon programmes and tat do not aow or te deInîtîon o dîstînct crîterîa agaînst wîc to measure efects. Second are te vested înterests o te actors tat înîtîate te arger sare o te programmes or purposes o pubîc reatîons (Weîngart & Joubert, 2019). ïn partîcuar, unîversîtîes are a pertînent exampe sînce tey are organîsatîons tat compete or pubîc unds, students and, most împortanty, posîtîve genera attentîon tat îs expected to enance teîr egîtîmacy wît te pubîc and poîcy-makers. hus, teîr communîcatîon actîvîtîes tat used to be ocused on (and îmîted to) press reeases about new dîscoverîes în teîr researc aboratorîes ave more oten tan not deveoped înto pubîc reatîons type communîcatîon, reLected în a dramatîc growt o communîcatîon proessîonas at unîversîtîes. Consequenty, te ocus o researc înstîtutîons, unîversîtîes and îndîvîdua researcers îs încreasîngy sîtîng rom înormatîon/knowedge transer to reputatîon contro and îmage buîdîng (AEA, 2019; Scäer, 2017). he resutîng probem îs tat ‘înterested communîcatîon commands consîderaby ess trust (Hey, 2018; Peters, 2015; Weîngart & Guenter, 2016). Anoter caenge to scîence communîcatîon tat aso împacts te pubîcs trust îs te roe o socîa medîa. Socîa medîa patorms, above a Facebook and Twîtter, ave acîîtated dîrect communî-catîon wîtout te tradîtîona journaîstîc întermedîarîes and ave been greeted by unîversîtîes and scîentîsts aîke or teîr promîse to expand teîr reac and to capture pubîc attentîon at a dîmensîon tat was untînkabe beore teîr advent. he înîtîa entusîasm tat te patorms ave trîggered as waned somewat în vîew o te varîous scandas o data abuse or poîtîca and economîc purposes, as we as – peraps even more împortanty – because o te spread o ase înormatîon. he actîvîtîes o antî-vaccînatîon groups onîne ave demonstrated te downsîde o te tecno-ogy în an area o scîence communîcatîon wîc îs partîcuary vunerabe, namey eat communîcatîon, because ît afects te medîca we-beîng o îndîvîduas and entîre communîtîes (see Van Scakwyk în tîs voume). hus, te many posîtîve and negatîve împîcatîons o te înternet and socîa medîa or scîence