This is archived web content selected for preservation by The National Archives.
This snapshot was taken on
15/02/2006
.
External links, forms and search boxes may not function within these archived websites.
.




Committee to Review the Contribution of Scientists and Engineers to the Public Understanding of Science, Engineering and Technology

Report

Preamble 1.1 The public understanding of science, engineering and technology is an important goal and one that has come into prominence in recent years.

1.2 In 1985 the Royal Society published the influential report on the public understanding of science, prepared by an ad hoc group under the chairmanship of Sir Walter Bodmer FRS. An important outcome of the report was the establishment by the Royal Society, the Royal Institution and the British Association for the Advancement of Science of the Committee on the Public Understanding of Science (COPUS) which in the last decade has made an outstanding contribution in the field of public understanding of science. It has also served to raise the profile of public understanding as an issue requiring the attention of all sectors of society, including Government.

1.3 The Government has declared its commitment to the promotion of the public appreciation and understanding of science, engineering and technology. The 1993 White Paper "Realising our Potential" (Cm 2250) included, for the first time in a Government White Paper, a strategy for raising the public awareness of the contribution of science, technology and engineering to national wealth and well-being. In the following year, the "Competitiveness" White Paper (Cm 2563) noted the need to enhance the understanding and status of engineering at Board level in companies, among financial institutions, and opinion formers.

1.4 The objectives of the Government's policy on public understanding are:

    1.4.1 to contribute to the economic wealth and quality of life of the Nation, particularly by drawing more of our best young people into careers in science, engineering and technology

    1.4.2 to strengthen the effectiveness of the democratic process through better informed public debate of issues of public concern arising in the fields of science, engineering and technology.

1.5 The main obstacle to achieving these objectives was perceived by Government to be the relatively low status of science and engineering in the eyes of the general public relative to other competitor nations. The policy therefore is about changing public attitudes as a means to achieving the objectives.

1.6 Changing attitudes is inevitably a long term process and needs to involve all sectors of society - including education, industry and commerce, professional bodies and the media.

1.7 Scientists, engineers and research students funded from the public purse have an important role to play. Many are already engaged in promoting greater public appreciation and understanding of science, engineering and technology. But, given the importance of the objectives, it is necessary to consider what more can be done. For this reason, in January, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster established an ad hoc Committee (see Annex A) with the following remit:

"to review the steps currently being taken to equip and encourage professional scientists, engineers and research students to contribute to improved public understanding of science, engineering and technology, and to suggest how these might be improved consistent with available funding."

1.8 The Committee has interpreted "public understanding" as meaning both "understanding" in the normal sense of understanding scientific concepts, terms and issues, but also to include - in line with the objectives of the Government's policy on public understanding - "awareness" and "appreciation" on the part of the general public of the contribution that science, engineering and technology make to our national life. The Committee recognises that all these matters also have non-science dimensions, such as economic, political or environmental. A public which understands science, engineering and technology will be mindful of these other factors.

1.9 The Committee defines science broadly to include mathematics, the natural sciences and medicine. In the remainder of this report, "engineering" should be read to include technology.

1.10 As indicated above (1.7), the Committee has focused its work on scientists, engineers and research students in receipt of public funds, in particular on those in universities.

Those working in the private sector have, in principle at least, similar obligations and would benefit from a more scientifically aware general public. We hope that our proposals for universities will result in changes which will encourage increased participation by others in promoting the public understanding of science and engineering. The Committee undertook a consultation of the top fifty research and development companies in the UK, and was pleased to note how many companies, and research charities, are already active in this field. As in the case of the universities, however, the Committee believes that more could be done.

1.11 The Charters of the Research Councils include among their objectives the promotion of public understanding in their particular areas of science. The Councils are to be commended for the rapid development of programmes in this area. We believe, however, that there is still scope for further contribution by the Councils particularly in their grant regimes (see 3.1 below).

1.12 Universities are independent bodies committed to excellence in teaching and research. Most recognise that they also have an interest in promoting the public understanding of their science and engineering work among the general public. The appointment of competent and experienced staff to run a university media/public relations department is an essential focus through which the public understanding of science and engineering (which would normally be more targeted than general public relations activities) can be promoted.

The Work of the Committee

2.1 To fulfil its remit, the Committee first undertook a wide-ranging consultation to establish what was already being done to equip and encourage scientists, engineers and research students to contribute to the public understanding of science and engineering.

2.2 Some 600 letters were sent to all the universities in the United Kingdom, to colleges of further education, and to professional scientific and engineering bodies. About 250 responses were received, of which nearly 80 were from universities.

2.3 The Committee was pleased to read of the work already being done in the field of public understanding by a very large proportion of universities. We were particularly impressed by programmes or projects at a number of universities, although many other universities are also active in the field and doing excellent work. The overall picture of the contribution of universities to the public understanding of science and engineering is very encouraging.

2.4 Nonetheless it was also clear from the first round of consultation that there was scope - in the university system as a whole - for enhancing this contribution, particularly in the areas of training in communication skills and of support by institutions for those engaged in public understanding work.

2.5 The Committee also received replies from the Professional Institutes and was impressed in general by their contribution to public understanding. However, the Committee believes that they too have the potential to contribute more to the support and encouragement of professional scientists and engineers. They occupy a key role for their subjects in that they straddle academia and industry.

2.6 On the basis of the responses to the initial consultation the Committee prepared a consultation document setting out its preliminary findings and proposals. This consultation document was sent to a selection of 36 universities in all parts of the United Kingdom, the Research Councils, the Funding Councils, certain Government Departments and others (for full list see Annex B).

2.7 Nearly all consulted in this second consultation round responded. The Committee wishes to express its gratitude for the high quality of the responses. They were on the whole positive in their approach to the issues raised by the Committee and their comments were invariably helpful. The Committee has taken account of them in the proposals at paragraph 3.1 and following below.

2.8 The Committee has also interviewed a number of "practitioners" in the field of public understanding and others with an interest in the Committee's remit. A list of those interviewed is at Annex C. Their contribution to the work of the Committee has been invaluable and we take this opportunity to thank them for their time and their help.

2.9 The public understanding of science, engineering and technology in years to come will be conditioned by the contemporary standard of science and technology taught in schools. In this context the Committee noted that many responses referred to the shortage of well-qualified, motivated and "provisioned" science and technology teachers.

The Committee's Proposals

Research Council grant procedures 3.1 In order better to equip professional scientists, engineers and research students to communicate an understanding and appreciation of their work to the general public, and to provide an institutional context which favours such activity, the Committee makes the following proposals. The first three are designed to build public understanding into the Research Councils' grant procedures:

    3.1.1 applicants for Research Council grants should be required to declare how they will communicate to the general public what they will be doing and why their work is important

    3.1.2 reports on the work for which Research Councils make grants should include an explanation of how the science or engineering was communicated to the general public. This may, of course, reflect the broader area of expertise of the grantholder rather than the specific research covered by the grant

    3.1.3 success in promoting the public understanding of the science or engineering for which Research Council grants are made should be taken into account in assessing subsequent grant applications.

3.2 The Committee, in making these proposals, recognises that not all scientists, engineers and research students are equally skilled at communicating to a wider public though they may be outstanding in their particular field. Extreme cases of inability to communicate are likely to be few. Nevertheless, grant-providers will wish to take that into account and to exercise judgement accordingly. In principle, however, all who receive grants from public funds should accept a responsibility to explain to the general public what the grant is enabling, or has enabled, them to do, and why it is important, and how it fits into the broader area of knowledge.

Training in Communication Skills

3.3 The following proposals address the need for proper training provision in communications skills for all scientists, engineers and research students. The Committee is pleased to acknowledge that some universities are already making provision in this area. The Committee notes that communication skills will have value in all eventual occupations and be welcomed by all employers.

    3.3.1 Undergraduate education in science and engineering should include a course in communication skills

    3.3.2 such courses should include, or be included in, practical work or work experience

    3.3.3 postgraduate training should include similar provision to enable students to consolidate their skills.

3.4 Institutions may also wish to consider (1) whether it would increase recognition by students of the importance of communication skills if the successful completion of communication skills courses by undergraduates were to count in the final degree mark, and (2) whether postgraduates should be required to give evidence alongside their final submissions of what they have done to communicate their work or the general area of their work to the public.

3.5 Members of staff may also need training in communications skills. Individual universities will differ in their approaches but one method would be for each department to nominate a member of staff within the university's science and engineering community to be instructed in the training of public communication skills. That staff member could be responsible for co-ordinating the training of students (and staff) within the department and also, with the assistance of the public relations department, taking the lead in promoting local and wider public understanding of the activities within the department.

Creating Incentives

3.6 Evidence given to the Committee indicates that promoting the public understanding of science often has its own reward in terms of increased self-confidence and satisfaction in finding that the public are in fact interested in and appreciative of one's work. For example, both staff and students co-opted to assist at stalls and explain science to passers-by at special events set up for National Science and Engineering Week, in the main and despite initial reluctance in some instances, found that they enjoyed the experience.

3.7 Evidence presented to the Committee suggests that some universities are not yet persuaded that encouraging public understanding activity is in their interests. The Committee believes that it is important for Vice-Chancellors and senior officers of universities, and other institutions, to give their strong support if universities are to create an environment which is favourable to public understanding work.

3.8 The following proposals are offered as a basis for further discussion within universities and Research Council institutes:

    3.8.1 success in promoting the public understanding of science or engineering should be recognised in terms of appointment and promotion prospects, which should depend on a mix of research, publications, teaching, administration and public understanding skills. It would be for individual institutions to decide the relative weighting of each of these components but we suggest that all should be taken into account

    3.8.2 since public understanding relates closely to research, we invite the Higher Education Funding Councils to consider, in discussion with higher education institutions, whether public understanding should not be an element in the Research Assessment Exercise (see further at para 4.2.3 below). Alternatively, given the strong training emphasis in our proposals, the Funding Councils might prefer to see public understanding as a component of the Teaching Quality Assessment. In any event, the Committee attaches great importance to the Funding Councils finding some way to recognise individual institutions' success in the field of public understanding.

Continuing Education

3.9 Liberal adult education provision, particularly at the older universities, has played a valuable role in extending the public understanding of science and engineering. The Committee believes this provision should be further developed and university researchers should be encouraged to participate in these programmes. We propose that:

    3.9.1 the Higher Education Funding Councils should consider, in discussion with higher education institutions, how to accommodate public understanding of science and engineering activities within university lifelong learning provision.

3.10 Staff involved in continuing adult education should also contribute to the training and staff development activities needed to enhance public understanding of science and engineering throughout the university, although others too may have a responsibility (see 3.5 above).

Committee on the Public Understanding of Science (COPUS)

3.11 A number of respondents and interviewees argued for greater co-ordination amongst existing schemes in the field of public understanding of science. Although outside its remit, the Committee agrees. The Committee believes that COPUS is well placed to take on this responsibility, but that its effectiveness in this role would be enhanced by a broadening of its base. The Committee welcomes COPUS's own current reappraisal of its role. In that context, the Committee would recommend that one or more senior engineering bodies should be invited to become members.

Maintaining momentum

4.1 The aim of the Committee's proposals is to build on the good work that is already being done in the field of public understanding. If we are to measure how successful the implementation of these proposals will be, there will need to be a formal means of evaluation. The Committee recommends that the Office of Science and Technology should make periodic surveys (say every five years) of public attitudes towards, and understanding of, science and engineering. The first survey should be undertaken as soon as possible.

4.2 Meanwhile, the Committee invites the universities to consider the following suggestions on possible quantity and quality measures for promoting the public understanding of science and engineering.

    4.2.1 Derivation of the measures. Measures of this kind are difficult to identify and produce, and inevitably absorb effort, but appear to the Committee to be, nevertheless, desirable.

    (a) "Time spent". The obvious simplest measure of "quantity" is the time spent in public understanding work. The Committee feels that a realistic average is 20 hours per year - inclusive of popular lectures, interviews, popular articles etc

    (b) Quantifiable measures of media coverage can be significant and are relatively easy to make. Each media "event" could be counted and categorised according to medium (newspaper, magazine, radio or TV) and span of coverage (local, regional, national or international). In practice, this means that each individual would be expected to keep a log of activities and a portfolio of the outcome

    (c) Quantifiable measures of non-media public events, such as lectures to schools and "public" audiences are similarly possible. Each event could be counted and categorised according to audience type and size

    (d) Subjective measures of the "quality" of events in (b) and (c) to measure the effectiveness of the communication, might be made by suitable means (such as standard machine-readable questionnaire forms or audience interviews)

    4.2.2 Use of the measures within higher education institutions. The measures should be assessed (with whatever rigour thought appropriate) by the Head of Department and the relevant higher education institution committee.

    4.2.3 Use of the measures by the Funding Councils. We are of the view that the HEFCs should play a part in the assessment of University Departments' work in the field of public understanding. Insofar as we are convinced of the need to link public understanding with research effort, the groups responsible for "Research Assessment" should have a role in measuring the effectiveness of public understanding work. To simply categorise Departments in, say, three bands - with (initially) no financial implications - would be an important start. The aim should be a more serious assessment, however.

Resource implications

5.1 The Committee's remit was to make proposals "consistent with available funding."

5.2 The Committee recognises that many of the proposals in this report imply redirecting resources - both in terms of finance and time.

5.3 Nonetheless, the Committee believes (see 6.1 and 6.2 below) that it is in the interest of universities themselves to improve the communication skills of their scientists, engineers and research students and to provide a more favourable environment for staff and students to carry out public understanding activities. It will be for individual universities to consider the most cost-effective means of doing so within their overall funding.

5.4 The Committee has been impressed by universities which are already implementing to a greater or lesser degree some of the proposals in our report. We believe that there would be value in developing a "best practice" guide and recommend accordingly that the Office of Science and Technology should commission a suitable body to produce it in consultation with other interested bodies.

Perspectives

The Nation's research output 6.1 In a changing world, the maintenance of research support, and hopefully its enhancement, and also the increased take-up of science and engineering subjects by people of all ages, will depend on public appreciation of science and engineering and their practitioners. This will have a direct effect on the economic wealth and quality of life of the Nation. This aspect is particularly important in the area of basic science where the tax payer is the main provider.

Public attitudes to universities

6.2 One of the results of adopting the Committee's proposals would be a wider appreciation of the role of universities in a modern society and, not least, the further breaking down of the barriers - real and imagined - between these institutions and the general public.

Conclusions and Recommendations

7.1 We hope that the work of the Committee and its recommendations will encourage all those in the professional scientific and engineering community, who have an interest in creating wealth and enhancing our quality of life, to participate in promoting the public understanding of science, engineering and technology.

7.2 The steps currently being taken in universities to equip and encourage professional scientists, engineers and research students to contribute to improved public understanding of science, engineering and technology vary considerably across the country. A few universities are making a major contribution. Most undertake some public understanding activities (2.3).

7.3 There is scope for improvement, however, particularly in the areas of training in communication skills, and of support for those engaged in public understanding activities (2.4).

7.4 The teaching of science and technology in schools is a continuing source of concern (2.9).

7.5 Scientists, engineers and research students in receipt of public funds have a duty to explain their work to the general public (3.2).

7.6 Research Councils should develop further their grant procedures to make public understanding an integral feature and continue with their other schemes in the public understanding of science, engineering and technology field (3.1).

7.7 In universities there should be increased emphasis on the acquisition of communication skills and their use for the benefit of the public (3.3).

7.8 This increased responsibility should bring with it increased recognition for both individual and institution (3.4 and 3.8).

7.9 The Funding Councils should take the lead in ensuring a continuing role for adult education provision in promoting the public understanding of science and engineering (3.9).

7.10 The Committee on the Public Understanding of Science (COPUS) is well placed to act as co-ordinator of public understanding activities across all sectors of society. If it is to fulfil that role, it should be expanded to include engineering and one or more senior engineering bodies should be invited to become permanent members of the new Committee (3.11).

7.11 The Professional Institutes should develop further their work in the public understanding of science, engineering and technology (2.5).

7.12 The OST should sponsor a study of the present degree of public understanding of science, engineering and technology against which future progress may be gauged (4.1).

7.13 Universities should develop cost-effective ways of measuring performance in public understanding (4.2).

7.14 The OST should commission the production of a "best practice" guide (5.4).

Membership of the Committee

Annex A Chairman Sir Arnold Wolfendale FRS - President of the Institute of Physics Members Mr Eric Hassall - Consulting Engineer

Dr Iain Murray - Lecturer in Computer Science, University of Dundee

Mr Ronald Paul - Retired headmaster of Currie High School, Edinburgh

Dr Geoffrey Thomas - Director, Department for Continuing Education, Oxford University; President of Kellogg College, Oxford

Ms Jenny Thurston - Deputy General Secretary, IPMS

Dr David Whitehouse - Science Correspondent, BBC News and Current Affairs

Dr Tom Wilkie - Science Editor, "The Independent"

Dr Monica Winstanley - Head of Public Relations, BBSRC

Second Consultation

Annex B - Universities England
  • Aston
  • Birmingham
  • Bristol
  • Cambridge
  • Central Lancashire
  • De Montfort
  • Durham
  • East Anglia
  • Imperial College, London
  • Keele
  • King's College London
  • Lancaster
  • Leeds
  • Liverpool John Moores
  • Loughborough
  • Middlesex
  • Newcastle
  • Open University
  • Oxford
  • Oxford Brookes
  • Sheffield
  • Sheffield Hallam
  • Southampton
  • Staffordshire
  • Surrey
  • Sussex
  • UCL
  • West of England
  • Wolverhampton

Northern Ireland

  • Queen's University Belfast
  • Ulster at Coleraine

Scotland

  • Edinburgh
  • Glasgow
  • Stirling

Wales

  • Aberystwyth
  • Glamorgan

Government Departments
  • Department for Education
  • Department of Trade and Industry
  • Employment Department Group
  • Scottish Office Education Department
  • Welsh Office Education Department
  • Department of Education Northern Ireland

Research Councils
  • Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council
  • Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council
  • Economic and Social Research Council
  • Medical Research Council
  • Natural Environment Research Council
  • Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council

Funding Councils
  • Higher Education Funding Council for England
  • Scottish Higher Education Funding Council
  • Higher Education Funding Council for Wales
  • Department of Education, Northern Ireland

Others
  • Sir Michael Atiyah FRS- President of the Royal Society
  • Sir William Barlow FEng - President of the Royal Academy of Engineering
  • Sir Walter Bodmer FRS - Director General of the Imperial Cancer Research Fund
  • COPUS
  • CVCP

Annex C The Committee Received Oral Evidence from:

Professor Peter Day FRS - Director, The Royal Institution

Ms Caroline Dempster - Press Officer, Heriot Watt University

Mr Philip Diamond - Higher Education Manager, Institute of Physics

Professor John Durant - Professor of Public Understanding Science, Imperial College

Ms Rhian Evans - Postgraduate Researcher, Cavendish Laboratory, University of Cambridge

Sir Francis Graham Smith FRS - Member of COPUS

Dr Daniel Mace - Postdoctoral Researcher, Cavendish Laboratory, University of Cambridge

Dr Ruth McKernan - Merck Sharp Dohme, former COPUS media fellow

Dr Lionel Milgrom - Brunel University, freelance science writer

Ms Jill Nelson - COPUS Executive Committee

Dr Susan Pringle - Department of Continuing Education, University of Bristol

Sir Martin Rees FRS - President, The British Association for the Advancement of Science

Dr Mary Rice - Head of Public Relations, Medical Research Council

Mr Nick Ross - Broadcaster and journalist