McFarlane Valentine BioConsulting is the premier Scottish biology and public policy consulting boutique. We specialise in advising legislators and administrators formulating public policy in the fields of biomedicine and agricultural biotechnology.

Communication and Public Understanding of Science

"It is the great glory as it is also the great threat of science that everything which is in principle possible can be done if the intention to do it is sufficiently resolute. Scientists may exult in the glory, but in the middle of the twentieth century the reaction of ordinary people is more often to cower at the threat."

Sir Peter Medawar, p15 "The Threat and the Glory" OUP 1977

As we approach the end of the century these words are increasingly appropriate. For example, we are confronted daily with moral or ethical questions which demand at least some familiarity with genetics. What do you think about test-tube babies? About medical cloning? Using pig hearts for human transplants? Or genetic screening? These are important questions all citizens have to ponder but they are hard to wrangle with if we don't understand the concepts and the methods, at least a little. Several problems with communicating science and enhancing public understanding of science require discussion.

Packaging: Science is fascinating but complicated and technically demanding.

The public are enthralled by how nature works. It isn't hard to enthuse one's relatives about the worth of cancer research or to persuade people on the street to put coins into an AIDS research collecting tin. But the details of the science can often be hard to put across. This means scientists and the communicators who package their findings must strive to use as simple language as possible and to think of lucid analogies, perhaps using household items like socks and oranges. Boring technical details must not be allowed to dominate the message. However those details must be available for peer-reviewed scrutiny, free from political and commercial pressures, before information is publicly released. This is the only way to maintain scientific quality and public trust.

Buyer: Public knowledge of basic science is poor.

The fear of the unknown is powerful. Radiation and cloning seem threatening. Understanding of important issues is meagre. For example a recent pan-European survey reports a third of respondents as worrying that if they eat a GM food they will alter their own genes. Another third thought tomatoes are gene-free unless genetically modified. This low level of current knowledge means little can be assumed when explaining new discoveries. But the effort to educate our compatriots about scientific matters is amply justified when the anxieties they feel become restricted to the matters that really pose the greatest public health or environmental risk.

Delivery: Information must be widely disseminated.

Basic information (what is a cell, what is a gene) is best taught at school with new material made available through the mass media, or targeted outreach. However we must be careful to ensure that news-making or commercial agendas don’t overwhelm the clarity of the scientific story.

Conclusion:

In summary, as more is scientifically possible we (scientists and government) must distribute more, clearer information. This will allow the populace to determine which threats are real and permit us (society) to counter those threats.

To comment please contact us. Last revised on 4 December 1999