Dialogue and debate: the new challenges of Science Communication Steve Miller University College London Mid-1990s

Deficit Model Top down One way Paternalistic

Sheila Jasanoff: “Civic dislocation” Trust in the government vanished, and people looked elsewhere for information and advice. In the UK, public confidence … rests on the reliability of persons … in the USA …trust rests in formal processes Gregory and Miller: The public are not quick to think the worst of scientists …the key is trust … established through the negotiation of a mutual understanding How neutral and/or trustworthy is science? BSE and GM

From wealth distribution to risk distribution The new paradigm: How can the risks and hazards systematically produced be prevented, minimised, dramatised or channelled “If the public only know what technical people know, they would be put at ease” - wrong. Even in their highly mathematical or technical garb, statements on risk contain statements of the type that is how we want to live … … in their concern with risk, the natural sciences have disempowered themselves somewhat, forced themselves towards democracy. Ulrich Beck Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity (1986)

the impact of “scandals” - a “crisis of trust” …the new mood for dialogue

The mood changes across Europe At the dawn of the 21st Century … our society is faced with the challenge of finding its proper place in a world shaken by economic and political turbulence. … science, technology and innovation are indispensable to meet this challenge. However, there are indications that the immense potential … is out of step with European citizens … Science activities need to centre around the needs and aspirations of Europe’s citizens to a greater extent than at present. 38 actions involving scientists, governments and the media involving scientists, governments and the media

Different approaches - PUS - PUSH - Culture Scientifique

POST Open Channels

Dialogue and debate - five questions Dia-logue v. mono-aud - who’s talking and who’s listening? Policy orientation - who’s allowed in? The role of the media - media values v. policy expectations Consensus v. balanced opposition Communication - who’s trained for what?

Dia-logue v. Mono-aud Is Dialogue the new Deficit Model - better persuasionIs Dialogue the new Deficit Model - better persuasion Is Dialogue the new Deficit Model - the Dialogue “Experts”Is Dialogue the new Deficit Model - the Dialogue “Experts” Is Dialogue the new Deficit Model - the “wrong” answerIs Dialogue the new Deficit Model - the “wrong” answer Is Dialogue the new Deficit Model - who responds to whatIs Dialogue the new Deficit Model - who responds to what

Who’s allowed in? NOW: Policy advice - elite to elitePolicy advice - elite to elite Public consultation - representative citizensPublic consultation - representative citizens Public outcome - “confident consumers”Public outcome - “confident consumers” Perugia Science Festival 1985: Scientist must “consider it their duty” to communicate

The role of the media Media have their own agendaMedia have their own agenda Media have their own valuesMedia have their own values Media have their own practicesMedia have their own practices Media “like” bad newsMedia “like” bad news Media like conflictMedia like conflict Much emphasis put on role of the media - BUT

Consensus v. balanced opposition Consensus conference model - homogenous public? Tradition - issues are exploredTradition - issues are explored Tradition - facts are contestedTradition - facts are contested Tradition - interests are differentTradition - interests are different Outcome - winners and losers

Writing for and talking to the media, plus media culture Presenting for policy makers and science centres Talking and listening Communicating risk and controversy Communication training Modules for Science Communication Training Training enhances confidence … … but does it make better communicators?

Dialogue and Debate: the new challenges of Science Communication Steve Miller University College London