Survey of factors affecting science communication by scientists and engineers science commun

icationexcellence in science 1 foreword

Scientists need to engage more fully with the public. The Royal Society recognises this, and is keen to ensure that such engagement is helpful and effective.

The role of science in public policy is becoming ever more pervasive. Many scientists are willing to engage in dialogue and debate, but they need encouragement and guidance, and they need to feel that their efforts are valued.

The Society established this study, with the support of Research Councils UK and the Wellcome Trust, to provide evidence on current attitudes and practice among scientists. A representative sample of UK researchers, at different stages in their careers, completed an online questionnaire and took part in interviews to establish the level of current ‘outreach’ activity, and how such activities were perceived.

The study was overseen by a Consultative Group, chaired by Professor Sir David Wallace FRS, and comprising senior representatives from science organisations across the UK.

This report outlines the key findings of the study, and the conclusions and recommendations of the Consultative Group.

The Royal Society has resolved to take several initiatives in response to the Consultative Group’s recommendations. We hope the findings will be helpful to other funding organisations, universities and research institutions in their efforts to promote and enhance the engagement of scientists with the public.

Professor Martin Rees President of the Royal Society

2 contents

4 introduction - section 1

8 key findings - section 2

13 conclusions and recommendations - section 3

18 appendix 1 - section 4

20 appendix 2 - section 5

45 notes - section 5

3 1 intro duction

Survey of factors affecting science communication by scientists and engineers 1

Survey of factors affecting science communication by scientists and engineers. Introduction

1.1 1.4 The Factors affecting science communication The study involved a web-survey of 1485 study was commissioned by the Royal Society, research scientists in higher-education institutes with support from Research Councils UK and and 41 interviews with a cross section of the Wellcome Trust, to examine the views and respondents and other relevant parties. The experience of UK scientists and engineers fieldwork and data reporting were undertaken (hereafter scientists) with regard to science by People, Science and Policy Ltd (PSP). communication and public engagement. 1.5 1.2 The study had six objectives: The study emerged in direct response to the BA/Royal Society Science Communication • to establish the relative importance of science communication to UK researchers; Conference in 2004, which produced several strategic recommendations to promote public • to examine the amount and type of science engagement with science. Findings from the communication activities undertaken by UK researchers; conference highlighted that ‘public engagement will not happen to any appreciable extent unless • to explore factors that may facilitate or scientists receive full recognition of their efforts inhibit science communication; and a supportive infrastructure is created in • to explore the extent to which researchers which engagement can take place’.1 The study may wish to undertake further science communication; also complemented a previous research project undertaken by the Wellcome Trust and MORI on • to explore the views of funders, senior attitudes to science communication within the academics, social scientists and other relevant groups on factors affecting research community.2 research scientists engaging in science 1.3 communication activities; and The overall goal of the study was to provide • to provide evidence about how universities, evidence for funding organisations, universities other research institutions and funders can promote effective science communication. and other research institutions on which they can base a workable system to reward scientists for their efforts to engage with the public.

1For further information see: www.royalsoc.ac.uk/sccrecommendations. 2 Welcome Trust/MORI (2000) The role of the scientists in public debate. Wellcome Trust: London. introduction

5 • • • • • need for: the ConsultativeGroup. Theseincludethe and recommendations basedontheviewsof survey andinterviews,developsconclusions This report summariseskeyfindingsfrom the 1.7 the BritishAcademy(seeAppendix1). Science, theAcademyofSocialSciencesand the BritishAssociationforAdvancementof Funding CouncilforEngland,UniversitiesUK, UK, theWellcome Trust, theHigherEducation of organisationsincludingResearch Councils Society, andcomprisingseniorrepresentatives FRS, Treasurer President andVice oftheRoyal Group, chaired byProfessor SirDavidWallace The studywasoverseenbyaConsultative 1.6 advocates forpublicengagement; the establishmentofrole modelsand undergraduate andpostgraduatelevel; a review ofpublicengagement training at facilitate thisanalysis; of therawdatainpublicdomainto development inthisarea, andtheplacing to highlightimplicationsinrelation topolicy further research andanalysisonthedataset engagement; what worksanddoesnotinpublic an understanding,through evaluation,of priorities are developed; education institutionsbefore funding among fundersofresearch andhigher- roles andobjectivesofpublicengagement greater clarityaboutthedefinition,goals, • • • • • • • recommendations. Theseincludetheneedto: Royal Societywillundertakeinresponse tothe This report alsosetsoutaseriesofactionsthe 1.8 scale ofimpact. to agree approaches andachievethedesired societieson publicengagement and learned higher-educationgovernment, institutions co-ordination betweenfundingagencies, of scientists; engagement activityinthecareer progression engagement andtheneedtoreward public of youngerscientiststogetinvolved policies whichenableahigherproportion benefits ofpublicengagement; rewards andbetterrecognition ofthe the introduction ofsignificantdepartmental wishing toundertakepublicengagement, a more effective supportsystemforscientists Society hasorganised andsponsored; inengagement public engage Fellowsandresearch fellows media andcommunicationskills; in additiontothosealready offered on training coursesonpublicengagement researchers theSocietyfundstoinclude development’ trainingoffered tothe expand the‘continuousprofessional heritage, culture andfuture prosperity; communicating scienceaspartofour programme; young peoplethrough itseducation to sciencepolicy; scope ofpublicengagementinrelation with theFellowshipthatexamine raise theprofile ofandexplore activities of clearobjectives; the Society’s policyinthisarea withaset define ‘publicengagement’andsetout and theimportanceof the needtoengage activities the in public 1 6 introduction 1

• help design activities for scientists funded 1.10 by the Royal Society who wish to organise Although the study has been conducted with their own public engagement initiatives; scientists and engineers, there are broader • track the level of public engagement implications concerning the ways in which activities, and the views and attitudes of all academics engage and communicate scientists funded by the Royal Society to with the public. assess the impact of initiatives developed; • develop a ‘standard operating practice’ 1.11 that will detail how public and stakeholder For further information on the survey and this engagement will be integrated into the report, please contact Dr Darren Bhattachary, Society’s science policy work; Senior Manager for Science Communication • work with the Higher Education Funding at the Royal Society, at: Council for England, Research Councils [email protected]. UK and the Wellcome Trust and other organisations who are considering developing awards for public engagement to ensure any mechanism is fully cognizant of the survey findings; • continue to work in partnership with organisations to gain clarity and influence the strategic thinking, direction and impact of public engagement activities in the UK and to work with others to deliver the Society’s objectives in this area.

1.9 This report is not intended to provide a comprehensive analysis of the data. Appendix 2 provides the responses (as percentages) to the questions asked in the survey. The full survey results, the qualitative interview findings and technical report (indicating the samples sizes, sub-group analysis and associated margins of error) are published separately.3 These reports and raw data, are available at www.royalsoc.ac.uk/survey.

3PSP (2006a). Factors affecting science communication: data report. PSP: London. PSP (2006b). Factors affecting science communication: report on qualitative research. PSP: London.

PSP (2006c). Factors affecting science communication: technical report. PSP: London. introduction

7 2 key findings

Survey of factors affecting science communication by scientists and engineers 2

Key findings

2.1 and the enjoyment/excitement of doing science (59%). Next in priority were the social and What does public ethical issues raised by science (49%)4, career options for those wishing to study science at engagement mean university (47%), the scientific process (46%), to scientists and why scientific uncertainty (45%) the findings of the is it important? research itself (38%), areas for further research (36%) and policy and regulatory issues (32%). 2.1.1 2.1.4 When scientists were asked to define in their The qualitative interviews highlighted the need own terms what engaging with the non- to engage with the non-specialist public in specialist public meant to them, the dominant terms of public accountability and the need to answer was to explain and promote public increase the profile of science, scientists and understanding of science (34%), followed by their institutions to the public. highlighting the implications, relevance and value of science (15%) giving a public lecture 2.2 (13%) and listening to and understanding the public (13%). Audiences and activity

2.1.2 2.2.1 In the closed-answer questions, which pre- The most important audiences identified by defined the range of responses, the most scientists to directly engage with about their important reason for the scientific community research (ranked 4 or 5 on a scale of 1-5) in general to engage the non-specialist public were policy makers (60%), schools and school was to ensure the public was better informed teachers (50%) and industry (47%). Least about science and technology (35%). The least important audiences were non-government important reasons were to contribute to ethical organisations (34%), people in the media such discussions about science (5%) and to recruit as writers and documentary makers (33%) and students (4%). general journalists (31%).

2.1.3 When considering their own research, the most important issues (ranked 4 or 5 on a scale of 1- 5) to engage the non-specialist public over were the relevance of science to everyday life (64%), the benefit of their research to individuals (60%)

4 This figure rose to 62% for clinical researchers and 59% for those who think their work has implications for society. key findings

9 5 about science. time engagingwiththenon-specialistpublic stated thattheywouldliketospendmore the‘noactivity’sub-group, 53% Within 2.2.5 also hadapositiveinfluenceonactivity. public engagement.Colleaguestakingpart undertaken andtheperceived importanceof correlation betweenthenumberofactivities per year)(11%).There isastrong positive and high-levelactivity(more than10activities (defined as1–10activitiesperyear)(63%); activity (26%);lowtomediumlevelactivities scientists emerge:thosewhoundertakeno Three levelsofpublicengagementactivityfor 2.2.4 or debate. and 20%hadtakenpartinapublicdialogue had writtenfornon-specialistpublications; makers; 30%hadworkedwithschools;25% a publiclecture; 33%hadengagedwithpolicy surveyed thatsaidtheyhadtakenpartin In thepast12months,40%ofscientists 2.2.3 12 months or publicengagementactivityinthepast part inatleastonesciencecommunication Of thosesurveyed,74%reported havingtaken 2.2.2 Scientists inPublicDebate’(seep.54). MORI/Wellcome Trust survey‘Roleof since 2000,whenbenchmarkedagainstthe institutional opendays. This figure doesnotincludeparticipatingin 5 – an18%increase inactivity • • • • • • • undertaken by: Public engagementwasmore likelytobe 2.2.7 engagement activityinthepast12months. for thosewhohadundertakennopublic engagement activity. Thisrose to10% ‘just didnotwantto’getinvolvedinpublic Six percentofparticipantssaidthatthey 2.2.6 peer pressure asabarrier. well regarded byotherscientists;and 3%cited 20% agreed thatscientistswhoengageare less main drawbackforengaging withthepublic; that timetakenawayfrom research wasthe more engaged(thetopresponse); 29%said time onresearch wasstoppingthemgetting Sixty-four percentsaidtheneedtospendmore 2.3.1 communication Barriers toscience 2.3 those withprevious communicationtraining. those olderthan40years; those those rated 5-star; research assessmentexercise thanthose those indepartmentsrated1–5the than thoseinnon-clinicalbiosciences; scientists the clinicalandnon-bioscience research councils; charities thanthosefundedby researchers or fundedbygovernment senior scientiststhanjuniorcolleagues; whohadteachingresponsibility in research-onlypositions ; than 2 10 key findings not unimportant). high priorityactivityforuniversities(though significant fundingandisnottherefore a public engagementdoesnotbringin The qualitativeresearch also identified that 2.3.4 academic life. as ‘altruistic’andnotacentralpartof teaching. Sciencecommunicationwasviewed broadly, allnon-research activities,suchas influence onsciencecommunicationand,more community intheUKandashavinganegative cited asakeydriverinfluencingtheacademic career. Theresearch assessmentexercise was funding todevelopingasuccessfulscientific of publicationsandbringingindepartmental The qualitativestudyhighlightedtheimportance 2.3.3 in suchactivity. negative stereotypes forwomeninvolved ‘light’ or‘fluffy’, andriskedreinforcing and thatpublicengagementwasseenas ‘not goodenough’foranacademiccareer; engagement wasdonebythosewhowere further messagethatemergedwaspublic was seenbypeersasbadfortheircareer. A highlighted thatpublicengagementactivity In thequalitativeinterviews,severalresearchers 2.3.2 awards forindividuals(39%). for departments(56%)were preferred to were alsoimportant(78%).Awards orprizes that covered staff timeaswellothercosts to undertakemore publicengagement).Grants encourage themagreat dealortosomeextent was thetopincentive(81%sayingitwould Bringing more moneyintothedepartment 2.4.1 communication Incentives forscience 2.4 support system. were suggestedaspartofanecessary direct supportfrom sciencecommunicators For example,mentors,technical helpand structures forpublicengagement work. education institutionstoguideandprovide was neededbetweenfundersandhigher- which highlightedthatgreater coordination This wasreinforced inthequalitativeinterviews, engagement activityothershadorganised. would behappytotakepartinpublic public engagementactivity;69%saidthey 8% disagree) thatfundersshouldsupport There wasstrong agreement (70%versus 2.4.3 for scientists. engagement activityshouldnotbemandatory or reward. Itwasalsostressed thatpublic agencies butratherapotentialopportunity activity shouldnotbeademandfrom funding It wasemphasisedthatpublicengagement 2.4.2 2 11 key findings activities wasalsohighlightedintheinterviews. The needtobetterrecognise non-research more forsenior(71%)thanjunior (58%)staff. engagement activitywouldactasanincentive: assessment exercise toencompasspublic Sixty-one percentsaidchangestotheresearch 2.4.7 incentives tobehaviour. extent otherscienceinstitutionsasimportant within individualuniversitiesandtoalesser The qualitativeresearch identifiedleadership 2.4.6 public engagementhelpedwiththeircareer. similarly 83%saidtheywouldparticipateif engagement ‘agreat deal’or‘tosomeextent’; would encouragethemtoundertakepublic that supportfrom theirheadofdepartment Seventy-three percentofjuniorstaff said 2.4.5 scientists totakepart. communicators organisingactivitiesandinviting an incentive,forinstanceprofessional science organise apublicengagementeventwouldbe to getfundsand72%makingiteasier to encourageactivity:75%saidmakingiteasier Public engagementgrantsneedtobesimplified 2.4.4 less publicengagementactivity. very fewscientists(3%)wishedtoundertake that undertooknoengagementactivity. Only view wasparticularlystrong forthosegroups should spendmore timeengaging(66%);this for allgroups wasthatscientistsandengineers engagement activity. Themainreason forthis wished tospendmore timeundertakingpublic engagement activity, around halfofscientists Irrespective oftheamountprevious 2.5.2 engagement training. have hadnomedia,communicationsorpublic Seventy-three percentofscientistssurveyed 2.5.1 Training anddemand 2.5 2 12 key findings 3

Con clusions and recomm endations

Survey of factors affecting science communication by scientists and engineers the recommendationsofConsultativeGroup. series ofactionsitwillundertakeinrelationto In thisspirit,theRoyalSocietyhasalsolisteda discussion amongthesciencecommunity. universities andfundinginstitutionsabroader It ishopedthattheywillpromote relevant actionby initial thoughtsonacomplexandmultifacetedissue. evidence bytheConsultativeGroup. are basedonareviewofthesurveyandinterview The followingconclusionsandrecommendations recommendations Conclusions and with thepublic. undesirable torequire allscientists toengage expressed inthequalitativeresearch thatitwas research. TheGroup supportedtheview on publicengagementbyfundersofscientific recognition oftheincreased importance placed activity since2000iswelcome,asthe science communicationandpublicengagement months isencouraging.The18%increase in public engagementactivityinthepast12 surveyed reported undertakingatleastone The findingthatthree quartersofscientists 1. Consultative Group Conclusions ofthe with thepublic. greater engagementofthesciencecommunity Technology, haveprominently encouraged the this report andtheCouncilforScience other organisationsincluding thesponsorsof science andinnovation,forexample,many Government’s 10yearinvestmentframeworkfor on scientists’attitudesandbehaviours.The of scienceishavingonlyamarginalinfluence societiesandfunders learned by Government, focus onpromoting theseactivities intheUK dialogue. Thissuggeststhatmuchofthecurrent aspartofagenuine debate, listenandlearn the needto‘educate’themratherthan main reason forengagingwiththepublicas There thatmanyscientistsseethe wasconcern 2. They represent 3 14 conclusions and recommendations 3

Recommendations 2. and actions by the Further analysis of the relationship between research culture and Royal Society involvement with public engagement activities is needed 1. The term ‘public engagement’ The issue of academic and broader research needs to be clarified culture was noted as a complex issue that may be impacting on public engagement in many The definition of ‘public engagement’ is ways. Generally, younger researchers, those in ambiguous, with the term used by scientists RAE 5-star departments and in research-only and institutions in many and varied ways. appointments undertook less public The Consultative Group recommends that engagement activity compared with senior funders of research, and higher-education researchers, those in departments rated RAE institutions, should clarify the definitions 1–5 and those research and teaching and objectives of public engagement appointments. The pressures on academics to before any future funding priorities are publish and bring substantial research funds developed. It is also important to develop into the department to progress their career an understanding, through evaluation, were also highlighted in the qualitative of what works and what does not in research. However, caution should be exercised public engagement. before inferring a causal relation between research pressures (such as the research In response: assessment exercise) and a negative impact on public engagement activities. Some members The Royal Society will clearly define ‘public of the Consultative Group argued for the need engagement’ and set out the Society’s policy in to open up a discussion about the aims and this area with a set of objectives. priorities of research culture in the UK. Several members of the Group recommended that It will specifically develop a ‘standard operating further research and analysis be practice’ that will detail how public and undertaken on the dataset to highlight stakeholder engagement will be used to implications in relation to policy inform its science policy work. development in this area. As such, the It will also benchmark the public engagement anonymised quantitative data set will be activities, views and attitudes of scientists funded placed in the public domain for by the Royal Society to assess and evaluate the further analysis. impact of future initiatives developed. recommendations conclusions and

15 Fellows oftheRoyalSociety. among eminentscientistsinthefield,including advocates forpublicengagement,particularly There isaneedtoestablishrole modelsand young peopleandindustry)shouldbeexplored. they viewasimportant(suchpolicymakers, courses tohelpscientistsengagecommunities development ofcommunicationtraining the ConsultativeGroup. Inaddition,the postgraduate levelsisalsosupportedby public engagementatundergraduateand of scientists. contribution tothecareer progression activities shouldalsomakeapositive Involvement withpublicengagement to getinvolvedwithpublicengagement. higher proportion ofyoungerscientists policies are developedwhichenablea The ConsultativeGroup recommends that public engagementactivities encouraged togetinvolvedwith More youngscientistsshouldbe 3. science communication. toprogress good practiceinuniversities public engagementwithinuniversities,and in universities,thechallengesofmainstreaming culture impactsonpublicengagement research institutions tooverseeastudyonhow The RoyalSociety In response: The trainingofscientistson will workwithother communities, suchassecondments.(PRIORITY) between thescienceandsocial other mechanismstopromote engagement science insocietywillalsobeexplored, aswill research fundingforinterdisciplinary studyin on mediaandcommunicationskills.Potential in society’additiontothosealready offered Fellows) toincludetrainingcourseson‘science the researchers itfunds(UniversityResearch professional development’supportoffered to The RoyalSociety science insociety. (PRIORITY) through writing,talksandstatementson to playanambassadorialrole onthisissue prosperity. Itwillprovide supportforFellows part ofourheritage,culture andfuture the importanceofcommunicatingscienceas people through itseducationprogramme; and to sciencepolicy;theneedengageyoung the scopeofpublicengagementinrelation and explore activitieswithitsFellowshipon The RoyalSociety In response: will expandthe‘continuous will raisetheprofile of 3 16 conclusions and recommendations 3

4. In response: A more effective support system The Royal Society will work with organisations for public engagement like the Higher Education Funding Council for England, Research Councils UK and the The Consultative Group endorses the Wellcome Trust, who are considering developing findings from the study that institutions new and significant funding awards for public and funding bodies need to provide better engagement to ensure any mechanism is fully support for scientists undertaking public cognizant of the survey findings. It will stress the engagement. This could range from the importance of gaining the buy-in of universities setting up of public engagement activities by on reward structures for science communication other agencies in which scientists were asked and public engagement. The Society will also to participate, to providing direct technical and highlight funding and support mechanisms to mentoring support to those departments Royal Society scientists undertaking public undertaking their own activities. engagement activity in the UK. (PRIORITY) In response: 6. The Royal Society will specifically work to Better coordination between engage the scientists it supports, particularly organisations working on Fellows and research fellows, in science public engagement communication and policy related public dialogue activities the Society has organised The Consultative Group recommends and sponsored. It will also help design activities the need for better coordination for scientists funded by the Royal Society who between funding agencies, government, wish to organise their own public engagement higher-education institutions and learned initiatives and provide web-based resources in societies on public engagement, in this area. (PRIORITY) exploring differences and synergies in goals for public engagement activities. 5. Greater rewards and recognition In response: for public engagement work The Royal Society will continue to work with a range of science based institutions to influence While noting the issues outlined above the strategic thinking, direction and impact of about the need for clearer objectives before public engagement activity in the UK, and to specific schemes are undertaken, the work in partnership with others to deliver its Consultative Group recommends that own objectives for this area. significant departmental rewards and better recognition of the benefits of public engagement should be introduced. recommendations conclusions and

17 4

Appendix 1

Survey of factors affecting science communication by scientists and engineers 4

Appendix 1

Members of the Consultative Group

Professor Sir David Wallace FRS Treasurer and Vice-President The Royal Society (Chair)

Professor Glynis Breakwell Vice-Chancellor University of Bath

Professor Sir Ivor Crewe former Chairman Universities UK

Professor Ian Diamond Chairman, Executive Group Research Councils UK

Professor Robert Dingwall Council Member Academy of Social Sciences

Professor Duncan Gallie FBA Vice President The British Academy

Sue Hordijenko Director of Programmes The British Association for the Advancement of Science

Professor Alan Irwin Dean of Social and Environmental Studies University of Liverpool

Clare Matterson Director Medicine, Society and History The Wellcome Trust

Professor Martyn Poliakoff FRS, Research Professor in Chemistry University of Nottingham

David Young Chairman Higher Education Funding Council for England

19 5

Appendix 2

Survey of factors affecting science communication by scientists and engineers 5

Overall responses

Factors affecting science communication: a survey of scientists and engineers

There are increasing calls for scientists and engineers to engage with the public and to discuss their research with those outside their field. The Royal Society, the Wellcome Trust and the Research Councils want to know what you think about this. Is this a good use of your time? If so, how can you be supported? If not, it is still important that your views are heard because they will impact on policy decisions.

Towards the end of the questionnaire you will be asked some questions about yourself so that we can compare the results for different groups.

You have been selected using robust sampling procedures and it is important that you personally reply. Your replies will be treated in the strictest confidence. Nothing any individual says will be attributed in the final report or passed on to the funders or anyone else. People Science & Policy Ltd has been appointed to undertake this survey by the funders. overall response

21 * indicateslessthan1%but greaterthan0. What, ifanything,doesthismeantoyou? Scientists are beingaskedtoengagemore withthenon-specialistpublic. Q1 0 Explainingtheprocess ofscience,whatisdone,why, limitations Mediawork 10% Communicatingwith orspeakingtothepublic,inlectures, shows 10% 13% Listening,understandingpublic,involvingpeopleinscience,science-based Implications,relevance, utilityofresearch, valueofscience 13% Informing,explaining,promoting understanding(public) 15% 34% %Don’t know Definitionof“thenon-specialistpublic” 1% Commentonthequestion 1% Talking tospecifictargetaudiences (NGOs,interest groups, communitygroups) 1% Nothing,notmuch, verylittle 2% Counteractingpoor mediacoverage,stereotypes 3% Writing generalbooks,articles 4% Additionalcallontime,wasteoftime 4% PRpositive,raiseprofile, attractstudents,funding 4% Informing,stimulating, promoting understanding(otherresearchers, policy-makers,users) 5% Disseminatingresearch /research findings 6% Accountability, dutyofpubliclyfundedresearchers 6% Good,worthwhile,important 7% Talking toschools,inspiringyoungpeople 7% 9% PRnegative,Govt.spin,“selling”science Required byfunders * Important/valuablepartofmyjob * * debates, science-baseddecisions (Unweighted Base1377,Weighted Base1358) 5 22 overall response 5

Q2 How important do you feel it is that you personally, in your current post, directly engage with each of the following groups about your research?

Please rate importance on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 is not important and 5 is very important

Not Very important important 12345

Q2a General journalists (i.e. in press, TV and radio) 25% 22% 22% 21% 10% (Unweighted Base 1481, Weighted Base 1481)

Q2b Popular science journalists (e.g. on New Scientist) 11% 18% 25% 27% 18% (Unweighted Base 1482, Weighted Base 1482)

Q2c Others in the media such as writers, documentary and other programme makers 20% 21% 26% 23% 10% (Unweighted Base 1478, Weighted Base 1479)

Q2d Schools and school teachers 14% 15% 21% 30% 20% (Unweighted Base 1481, Weighted Base 1481)

Q2e Young people outside school 17% 19% 26% 24% 14% (Unweighted Base 1476, Weighted Base 1477)

Q2f Policy-makers 9% 11% 20% 25% 35% (Unweighted Base 1477, Weighted Base 1478)

Q2g Industry / business community (other than where directly concerned with funding your research) 12% 17% 24% 25% 22% (Unweighted Base 1478, Weighted Base 1479)

Q2h The non-specialist public 11% 19% 31% 27% 12% (Unweighted Base 1475, Weighted Base 1474)

Q2i Non-Governmental organisations (NGOs) 15% 19% 31% 23% 11% (Unweighted Base 1472, Weighted Base 1477) overall response

23 Why doyousaythat? Q4 research findings? Which ofthesegroups doyoufinditeasiesttotalkwithaboutyour Q3 29% Popular science journalists Popularsciencejournalists 29% 7 Myworkismostrelevant tothem/whattheydo We speakthesamelanguage/theyare mostlikeme/theyunderstand 17% Theywanttoknow/are mostinterested /putineffort 21% 24% Generaljournalists 12% Thenon-specialistpublic 21% Young peopleoutsideschool 14% Industry/businesscommunity 29% Young peopleinschools 22% Policy-makers 16% %Other I’vehadspecialtraining/Ihavetheskills 1% Idon’t havetotry/theycontactme 1% Becauseit’s already partofmyjob 1% Theyare easilyaccessible 2% Theydon’t twistthings/havedifferent agenda 2% Theydon’t havepre-conceived ideas/misconceptions 2% There isnoonedifficult group /easygroup /Iliketalkingtoanyoneno-one 2% They’re themostfun /it’s mostrewarding 3% NotValid 3% Thenetworks/contactsopportunities are already inplace 3% Myownexperience 4% 5% Don’t know None * * (e.g. onNewScientist) (Unweighted Base1468,Weighted Base1470) (Unweighted Base1248,Weighted Base1224) 3 Schoolsandschoolteachers 23% Press officers inyourinstitution 17% 9 None/Don’t know 19% Patients/patientgroups 20% organisations) NGOs(non-Governmental 10% %Othersinthemediasuchasdocumentary 9% and otherprogramme makers 5 24 overall response 5

Q5 Which of these groups do you find it hardest to talk with about your research findings? (Unweighted Base 1401, Weighted Base 1413) 19% Policy-makers 5% Non-Governmental organisations (NGOs) 7% Young people in schools 10% Others in the media such as 12% Industry / business community writers, documentary and 11% Young people outside school other programme makers

6% Popular science journalists 4% Patients / patient groups (e.g. on New Scientist) 5% Press officers in universities 15% The non-specialist public 47% None / don’t know 21% General journalists 6% School teachers (i.e. in press, TV and radio)

Q6 Why do you say that? (Unweighted Base 1058, Weighted Base 983)

27% I have no / less experience dealing with them / any groups 18% We have different agendas / They twist things 17% We don’t speak the same language / they are least like me / they don’t understand me 14% They do not want to know / are least interested / don’t put in any effort 8% There is no one difficult group / easy group / I like talking to anyone / no-one 6% The networks / contacts / opportunities are not already in place 5% They are not easily accessible 5% They have pre-conceived ideas / misconceptions 3% My work is not relevant to them 3% They want definite answers / simple statements 2% Other 1% Don’t know 1% It’s too much effort to try and contact them 1% Because it’s has little to do with my job 1% I have not had any training / I don’t have the skills 1% Not Valid 1% My own experience overall response

25 Q7a Q7k Q7j Q7i Q7h Q7g Q7f Q7e Q7d Q7c Q7b each ofthefollowing? science, roughly howmanytimesinthepast12monthshaveyoudone Thinking aboutpublicengagementwith,andcommunicationabout, Q7 icuigwiigeuainlmtras 7%1%1%2 3% 2% 10% 15% 70% (including writingeducationalmaterials) Worked withteachers/schools ugdcmeiin 9 %2 %* 1% 2% 4% 8% 2% 1% 89% 8% 1% 4% 9% 5% 77% 2% 6% 11% 87% Judged competitions 16% 1% 1% 67% Worked withsciencecentres /museums 1% 1% 3% 1% organisations (NGOs) 8% Engaged withnon-Governmental 4% 3% 2% 15% Engaged withpolicy-makers 7% 14% 8% 75% * 88% 21% 13% (including forthemedia,articlesandbooks) Written forthenon-specialistpublic 60% 77% 1% Been interviewedbyanewspaperjournalist 6% 2% 13% Been interviewedonradio 5% 80% 14% Taken partinapublicdialogueevent/debate 36% part ofapanel 44% Given apubliclecture, includingbeing Participated inaninstitutionalopenday (Unweighted Base1445,Weighted Base1453) (Unweighted Base1445,Weighted Base1454) (Unweighted Base1440,Weighted Base1451) (Unweighted Base1447,Weighted Base1455) (Unweighted Base1448,Weighted Base1453) (Unweighted Base1454,Weighted Base1458) (Unweighted Base1444,Weighted Base1452) (Unweighted Base1442,Weighted Base1452) (Unweighted Base1460,Weighted Base1462) (Unweighted Base1466,Weighted Base1471) (Unweighted Base1464,Weighted Base1468) oeOc - - More 2-34-5 Once None ie ie than times times 5 times 5 26 overall response 5

For the remainder of the questionnaire, we will be talking about communication and engagement with the non-specialist public only. By this we mean adults with no specialist knowledge of, or training in, science. Q8 How important do you think it is that you personally, in your current post, engage directly with the non-specialist adult public on each of the following? Please rate importance on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 is not important and 5 is very important Not Very important important 12345 Q8a The scientific findings of your research 14% 19% 28% 22% 16% (Unweighted Base 1475, Weighted Base 1476)

Q8b Areas for further research 14% 21% 29% 22% 14% (Unweighted Base 1472, Weighted Base 1474)

Q8c Policy and regulatory issues 20% 22% 26% 20% 12% (Unweighted Base 1469, Weighted Base 1472)

Q8d The wider social and ethical implications of your research findings for society 15% 15% 20% 27% 22% (Unweighted Base 1468, Weighted Base 1470)

Q8e The potential benefits of your work to individuals 11% 10% 20% 32% 28% (Unweighted Base1471, Weighted Base 1473)

Q8f The scientific process / the nature of science 12% 14% 28% 25% 21% (Unweighted Base 1471, Weighted Base 1471)

Q8g Scientific uncertainty 13% 16% 25% 25% 20% (Unweighted Base 1472, Weighted Base 1473)

Q8h The enjoyment and excitement of doing science 10% 11% 20% 27% 32% (Unweighted Base 1474, Weighted Base 1475)

Q8i The relevance of science to everyday life 8% 10% 18% 30% 34% (Unweighted Base 1472, Weighted Base 1474)

Q8j To raise awareness of career options in science 13% 14% 26% 26% 21%

(Unweighted Base 1473, Weighted Base 1474) overall response

27 5 To beaccountable fortheuseofpublicfunds 15% specialist public? reason forscientistsandengineersgenerallytoengagewiththe non- Looking atthelistbelow, whatdoyouthinkisthesecondmostimportant Q10 public? scientists andengineersgenerallytoengagewiththenon-specialist Looking atthelistbelow, whatdoyouthinkisthemainreason for Q9 5 To contributetopublicdebatesabout scienceandscientificissues 15% To raiseawareness ofsciencegenerally To raiseawareness aboutyoursubject 12% To ensure thepublicisbetterinformedaboutscienceandtechnology 11% 35% To contributetopublicdebatesaboutscienceandscientificissues To beaccountablefortheuseofpublicfunds 11% 10% 4 To raise awareness ofsciencegenerally To raiseawareness aboutyoursubject 14% To ensure thepublicisbetterinformedaboutscienceandtechnology 13% 17% %(Other)Combatbad jobdonebyothers (Other) Combatnegativeimages 0% Other, PLEASESPECIFY 1% 1% To recruit studentstoyoursubject To generate/stimulate additionalfundsforuniversitiesandcolleges 6% To contributetodiscussionsabout thesocialandethicalissuessciencecanraise 9% 9% Other, PLEASESPECIFY 2% To recruit studentstoyoursubject To generate/stimulateadditionalfundsforuniversitiesandcolleges 4% To contributetodiscussionsaboutthesocialandethicalissuessciencecanraise 8% 5% There are noreasons to engagewiththisgroup * (Other)Combatbadjob donebyothers (Other)Combatnegativeimages * * There are noreasons toengagewiththisgroup * (Unweighted Base1473,Weighted Base1478) (Unweighted Base1413,Weighted Base1428) 5 28 overall response 5

Q11 Looking at the list below, what do you think is the main drawback to scientists and engineers generally engaging with the non-specialist public? (Unweighted Base 1447, Weighted Base 1456)

1% It makes them look bad in front of their peers

10% It makes them a target

19% It can send out the wrong messages

1% It diverts money from research projects

* It diverts money from other, non-research, activities

29% It takes up time that is better used on research

3% It takes up time that is better used on other, non-research, activities

27% There are no drawbacks to engaging with any of these groups

3% Other, PLEASE SPECIFY

* (Other) Does not benefit me / no motivation

3% (Other) Most scientists are bad at it / misrepresentation

1% (Other) Most science is not newsworthy / public are not interested

* (Other) Trivialisation of science

2% (Other) It takes time (general)

0% (Other) All of the above overall response

29 non-specialist public? how importantisittoyouthatfind time toengagewiththe In relation totheotherthings youhavetodoinyourworkinglife, Q13 public? to scientistsandengineersgenerallyengagingwiththenon-specialist Looking atthelistbelow, whatdoyouthinkisthesecondmaindrawback Q12 9 Fairlyimportant Equallyimportant 19% Notveryimportant 21% Notatallimportant 42% 10% There are nodrawbackstoengagingwithanyofthesegroups Ittakesuptimethatisbetterused onother, non-research, activities 24% Ittakesuptimethatisbetterused onresearch 14% 16% Itcansendoutthewrong messages Itmakesthematarget 16% 14% %Very important 9% (Other)Alloftheabove 0% (Other)Mostscienceisnotnewsworthy /publicare notinterested 1% (Other)Doesnotbenefit me/nomotivation Other, PLEASESPECIFY 1% 4% Itdivertsmoneyfrom other, non-research, activities Itdivertsmoneyfrom research projects 1% 7% Itmakesthemlookbadinfront oftheirpeers 3% (Other)Ittakestime(general) (Other)Trivialisation ofscience * * (Other)Mostscientistsare badatit/misrepresentation * (Unweighted Base893,Weighted Base938) (Unweighted Base1479,Weighted Base1481) 5 30 overall response 5

Q14 Would you like to spend more time, less time or about the same amount of time as you do now engaging with the non-specialist public about science? (Unweighted Base 1481, Weighted Base 1482)

45% I would like to spend more time

41% I am content with the amount of time I spend on this now

3% I would like to spend less time

11% Don’t know

Q15

Why do you say that? (Unweighted Base 690, Weighted Base 666)

66% Scientists and engineers should engage more with the community

28% I work in a topical area of science

14% There is a need to recruit more students

13% Scientists and engineers need to be more accountable

10% I work in a controversial area of science

6% Other, PLEASE SPECIFY

1% (Other) The general public should know more about science

1% (Other) The general public should understand the importance / benefits of science

1% (Other) To raise the profile of science to increase participation (e.g. donor transplants)

1% (Other) I don’t have enough time at the moment

* (Other) To enthuse the public

* (Other) To increase funding overall response

31 question 16continuedonnext page Q16h Q16g Q16f Q16e Q16d Q16c Q16b Q16a Please indicatewhetheryouagree ordisagree foreachstatement. non-specialist publicaboutscienceandengineering. Below are somethingspeoplehavesaidaboutengagingwiththe Q16 ym eerh7 4 0 3 4 3% 14% 33% 20% 24% 7% 1% 9% 28% 25% 28% 2% 8% 7% 2% 2% by myresearch 28% 29% a publicstanceontheissuesraised 2% 24% 39% I wouldnotwanttobeforced totake 12% 33% 13% 14% 6% 11% with thenon-specialistpublic 49% I simplydon’t havetimetoengage 6% 20% 3% support forscienceandengineering 1% non-specialist publicistogettheir The mainreason toengagewiththe 7% 17% 3% to thenon-specialistpublic 54% I don’t thinkmyresearch is interesting 4% 16% 17% of theirresearch 22% the socialandethicalimplications 46% with thenon-specialistpublicabout 7% 3% Scientists haveamoraldutytoengage 18% 36% the non-specialistpublic help scientiststocommunicatewith 22% Funders ofscientificresearch should 17% 3% contacts fortheirresearch might helpresearchers makenew Engaging withthenon-specialistpublic well regarded byotherscientists Scientists whocommunicatealotare not (Unweighted Base1477,Weighted Base1476) (Unweighted Base1473,Weighted Base1468) (Unweighted Base1479,Weighted Base1478) (Unweighted Base1480,Weighted Base1477) (Unweighted Base1480,Weighted Base1479) (Unweighted Base1479,Weighted Base1477) (Unweighted Base1477,Weighted Base1470) (Unweighted Base1480,Weighted Base1479) togyAreNihrDsge togyDon’t Strongly Disagree Neither Strongly Agree ge iareknow Disagree Agree 5 32 overall response 5

question 16 continued

Q16i Engagement with the non-specialist public is best done by trained professionals and journalists 6% 28% 19% 35% 9% 2% (Unweighted Base 1477, Weighted Base 1476)

Q16j Engaging the non-specialist public in science is personally rewarding 11% 52% 21% 6% 1% 9% (Unweighted Base 1479, Weighted Base 1478)

Q16k My research is too specialised to make much sense to the non-specialist public 4% 17% 15% 44% 19% * (Unweighted Base 1477, Weighted Base 1477)

Q16l I would need help to develop a science engagement project 10% 49% 18% 13% 3% 8% (Unweighted Base 1477, Weighted Base 1477)

Q16m I would be happy to take part in a science engagement activity that was organised by someone else 8% 61% 18% 7% 2% 4% (Unweighted Base 1475, Weighted Base 1473)

Q16n Public engagement could help with my career 4% 34% 30% 17% 7% 8% (Unweighted Base 1476, Weighted Base 1474)

Q16o Engaging with the non-specialist public is best done by senior researchers 4% 19% 20% 42% 12% 3% (Unweighted Base 1473, Weighted Base 1472)

Q16p There are no personal benefits for me in engaging with the non-specialist public 6% 15% 19% 43% 14% 4% (Unweighted Base 1476, Weighted Base 1474)

Q17 How easy or difficult do you think it is to get involved in science engagement activities for those who want to do so? (Unweighted Base 1480, Weighted Base 1481)

4% Very easy 6% Very difficult 24% Don’t know / can’t say 31% Fairly easy 35% Fairly difficult overall response

33 have had.(Multi-codeallowed) non-specialist public?Donotincludeanyteachingtrainingyoumay What training,ifany, haveyouhadincommunicatingsciencetothe Q19 (Unweighted Base1480,Weighted Base1481) the non-specialistpublicaboutyourresearch? How wellequippeddoyoupersonallyfeelare toengagewith Q18 8 Notverywellequipped Fairlywellequipped 38% 43% %Don’t know Notatallequipped 4% 8% Very wellequipped 8% 1 Training inspeakingtothenon-specialistpublic Training11% inwritingforthenon-specialistpublic Mediatrainingonbeinginterviewed byjournalists 10% None 14% 73% %[Other]Informalmeans/experience Training3% inspeakingtoschoolchildren (ofanyage) Training4% inunderstandingtheUKschooleducationsystem 3% (Unweighted Base1471,Weighted Base1474) 5 34 overall response 5

Q20 What would encourage you personally to get involved in activities that engage the non-specialist public in science? (Unweighted Base 1315, Weighted Base 1280)

22% If someone else initiated it / it was offered to me 10% If I had some (more) training 10% Time (General) 7% If it helped with my own career 6% If I could see the benefit / positive feed-back 6% If people were more interested in my work 5% If it was part of my job 5% More support from my head of department 4% Don’t know 4% Recognition 4% Financial Reward (Non-specified) 4% Better links to relevant groups / contacts / framework 3% If there was an area I felt I could contribute in 3% Support (Other than from head of department) 3% If it was part of the RAE exercise 3% If I was relieved of other work 3% Invalid Response 2% If there were personal financial rewards 2% If it was easier to get funds for engagement activities 2% More backroom support / infrastructure 2% Nothing (Positive) 2% If it wasn’t viewed as inferior to other work 2% If other people got involved too 2% Having a more permanent position / job security 2% A better educated public 1% If engagement grants covered staff time as well as costs

question 20 continued on next page overall response

35 question 20continued %Other Ifotherpeopleweren’t1% againstit/ifwasn’t detrimentaltomycareer Skillsnotgoodoratthings 1% Strategy/Plan 1% Recruitingmore1% students Alesssensationalistmedia 1% Makeitaconditionofgrants 1% Longertermfunding-more1% free time/betterfunding Iftimecouldbefundedundergrants 1% Ifitbrought1% moneyintothedepartment 1% Personalbenefit/feelinggood RemoveRAE * Ifitwaseasiertoorganisesuchactivities * Ifitwaspartofgettingprofessional* status Ifthere* were awards orprizes Keepingcontrol* ofpublishedmaterial Protection* againstanimalrightsprotestors * 5 36 overall response Q21a Q21l Q21k Q21j Q21i Q21h Q21g Q21f Q21e Q21d Q21c Q21b by eachofthefollowing? in activitiestoengagethenon-specialistpublicscienceandengineering To whatextentwouldyoupersonallybeencouragedtogetmore involved Q21 ogv emr upr n norgmn 8 8 9 2 3% 12% 19% 48% 18% to givememore supportandencouragement If myheadofdepartment/linemanagerwere fIhdsm mr)tann 2 6 9 1 2% 11% 4% 19% 6% 46% 4% 3% 12% 22% 6% 7% 42% 18% 36% 15% 47% 43% 25% If Ihadsome(more) training 32% 1% 2% If itwaseasiertoorganisesuch activities 6% 16% as wellothercosts 12% If grantsforengagementcovered staff time 26% 48% 40% engagement activities 2% 33% If itwaseasierformetogetfunds 16% 9% 12% 1% 13% If itbrought moneyintomydepartment 3% 25% 17% 9% 18% 40% recognised byanaward orprize 2% 32% 13% If mydepartmentorinstitutionwas 20% 21% 29% 28% 49% 41% communication withthenon-specialistpublic 31% 27% If theRAEexercise waschangedtoencompass 18% 32% If Iwasrelieved ofotherwork 7% If ithelpedwithmyowncareer of myprofessional body such aschartered engineerormembership If itwaspartofgettingprofessional status, me asanindividual If there were awards andprizes for (Unweighted Base1465,Weighted Base1444) (Unweighted Base1460,Weighted Base1441) (Unweighted Base1464,Weighted Base1438) (Unweighted Base1468,Weighted Base1444) (Unweighted Base1470,Weighted Base1445) (Unweighted Base1467, Weighted Base1444) (Unweighted Base1466,Weighted Base1443) (Unweighted Base1468,Weighted Base1442) (Unweighted Base1468,Weighted Base1444) (Unweighted Base1468,Weighted Base1444) (Unweighted Base1467,Weighted Base1443) (Unweighted Base1465,Weighted Base1441) ra T oe o ey o Don’t Not Notvery To some A great eletn uha l know atall much extent deal 5 37 overall response (Unweighted Base1470,Weighted Base1459) engage thenon-specialistpublicinscience?Pleasemarkallthatapply What isstoppingyoufrom getting(more) involvedinactivitiesthat Q22 8 There isnotenoughfunding 18% There isnoseniorlevelsupport 16% Englishisnotmyfirstlanguage 13% Iamtoojunior 22% %(Other)Lackofopportunity/ 4% %Peerpressure 3% Ifeelthatamencroaching on (Other)Thepublicdonotunderstand 3% 0% (Other)Thepublicdon’t wantto IamonlyintheUKforalimitedperiod 1% 8% Ijustdon’t wantto Iamalready6% involvedenough 9% (Other)Idonothavethetraining * (Other)Nature ofmyresearch * (Other)Idonothavethecontacts/links * Press Office work know /myworkisn’t interesting I don’t knowhow 3 Ineedtospendmore timegetting 43% 3 Ineedtospendmore timeteaching 23% 4 Iwouldhavetodoitinmyowntime 34% 4 Ineedtospendmore timeon 24% Ineedtospendmore 64% %(Other)Idonothavetheconfidence/ 1% (Other)Ineedsomeoneelseto 1% %(Other)Nobenefit/recognition 1% (General) (Other)Time 2% %Other 4% (Other)Fearofnegative * reaction /self-promotion issues time onmyresearch I wouldbebadatit funding formyresearch organise it administration 5 38 overall response (Unweighted Base1473,Weighted Base1462) in activitiestoengagethenon-specialistpublicscience? Is yourinstitutiongenerallysupportivetowards researchers whotakepart Q25 in science? those whotakepartinactivitiesthatengagethenon-specialistpublic Are theresearchers inyourdepartment generallysupportivetowards Q24 (Unweighted Base1474,Weighted Base1463) that engagethenon-specialistpublicinscience? Do othermembersofyourdepartmenttakepartinactivities Q23 8 Don’t know 28% Notparticularlysupportive Yes,17% fairlysupportive Yes,36% verysupportive 13% Don’t know 30% Notparticularlysupportive Yes,18% fairlysupportive Yes,38% verysupportive 12% Don’t know 20% Yes, oneortwoof them Yes,35% someofthem 33% %Itvariesbetweendepartments Notatallsupportive 5% 2% Notatallsupportive 2% Noneofthem 8% Yes, mostofthem 3% (Unweighted Base1470,Weighted Base1458) 5 39 overall response (Unweighted Base1485,Weighted Base1485) Which bestdescribesyourmainrole atyourinstitution? Q28 Working status Q27 (Unweighted Base1485,Weighted Base1485) Which ofthesebestdescribesyourcurrent position? Q26 All replies willbetreated inthestrictestconfidence. of respondent, pleasetellussomethingaboutyourself. In order forustounderstandtheviewsofdifferent types 6 Research andteaching Research46% (including clinicalresearch) 50% Working full-time(>35hoursperweek) 93% Junior/assistantresearcher /fellow Lecturer23% /researcher /fellow Reader/seniorlecturer45% /researcher /fellow Professor18% orabove 12% %Noreply 1% %Noreply Management/administration 1% Clinicalworkonly 2% Teaching1% only 1% Noreply Working1% part-time(<35hoursperweek) 6% Technician /othersupportstaff * (Unweighted Base1485,Weighted Base1485) 5 40 overall response 5

Q29 From the list below, which discipline most closely describes your current area of research interest? (Unweighted Base 1485, Weighted Base 1485)

26% Clinical medicine (including dentistry) 28% Non-clinical bioscience (including medical, psychology, veterinary, agricultural) 21% Engineering / engineering sciences (including IT) 5% Chemical / chemical engineering 8% Physics (including materials sciences) and astronomy 4% Mathematics 8% Environmental sciences (including earth and marine sciences) * No reply

Q30 Do you think your work has implications for society and/or policy-makers and regulators? (Unweighted Base 1485, Weighted Base 1485)

71% Yes 14% No 14% Don’t know / not sure 1% No reply

Q31 What was the latest RAE score for your department/unit of assessment? (Unweighted Base 1485, Weighted Base 1485)

*1 *2 4% 3 16% 4 30% 5 30% 5* 20% Don’t know 1% No reply overall response

41 (Unweighted Base642,Weighted Base560–allthosefundedbyResearchCouncilatQ32) Which councilisfundingyourresearch? Q33 (Unweighted Base1485,Weighted Base1485) What istheprincipalsource offundingforyourresearch? Q32 9 EPSRC NERC 49% MRC 10% BBSRC 11% 14% Whollyorprincipallyfundedbyindustry Whollyorprincipallyfundedbyanother charity 11% 15% WhollyorprincipallyfundedbyaResearch Council 38% %Noreply 1% (Other)Mixedfunding (Other)Nofunding 2% Other 1% 4% WhollyorprincipallyfundedbytheRoyalSociety WhollyorprincipallyfundedbyTheWellcome1% Trust Whollyorprincipallyfundedbyan EUresearch8% grant WhollyorprincipallyfundedbyaHigherEducationFundingCouncil 7% Department WhollyorprincipallyfundedbyaGovernment 6% 7% %Noreply 4% ESRC PPARC4% 6% AHRB/AHRC * (Other)On/off funding * 5 42 overall response 5

Q34 To the nearest year, how long have you been working in scientific research, whether in academia or elsewhere? If less than six months enter 0, if more than six months but less than a year enter 1. (Unweighted Base 1485, Weighted Base 1485)

66% Under 15 years 32% 15 years and over 2% No reply

Q35 What was your age last birthday? (Unweighted Base 1485, Weighted Base 1485)

54% Under 40 44% 40 and Over 2% No reply

Q36 Are you: (Unweighted Base 1485, Weighted Base 1485)

65% Male 34% Female 1% No reply

Q37 What is your ethnic origin? (Unweighted Base 1485, Weighted Base 1485)

53% White - UK * Black - Other 14% White - Europe 10% Chinese 1% White - US 3% Indian 5% White - Other 2% Pakistani * Black - African 6% Other Asian * Black - Caribbean 2% Mixed race * Black - UK 3% No reply 0% Black - US Other, PLEASE SPECIFY overall response

43 (Unweighted Base1485,Weighted Base1485) Do youintendtoworkintheUKlongterm? Q39 (Unweighted Base1485,Weighted Base1485) Is Englishyourfirstlanguage? Q38 5 Don’t know 15% Yes 80% No Yes30% 69% %Noreply 1% No 4% Noreply 1% 5 44 overall response The Royal Society

6–9 Carlton House Terrace London SW1Y 5AG tel +44 (0)20 7451 2500 fax +44 (0)20 7930 2170 email: [email protected] www.royalsoc.ac.uk

The Royal Society has three roles: as the UK academy of science, as a learned society and as a funding agency. It responds to individual demand with selection by merit, not by field.

The objectives of the Royal Society are to:

strengthen UK science by providing support to excellent individuals

fund excellent research to push back the frontiers of knowledge

attract and retain the best scientists

ensure the UK engages with the best science around the world

support science communication and education, and communicate s and encourage dialogue with the public

provide the best independent advice nationally and internationally promote scholarship and encourage research into the history of science. c

Issued: June 2006 Founded in 1660, the Royal Society is the independent scientific academy of the UK, dedicated to promoting excellence in science Registered Charity No 207043