Science Communication Today
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
197161JPH_SCIENCE_Cs4_PC.indd 1 13/04/2013 08:45:14 197161JPH_SCIENCE_Cs4_PC.indd 2 13/04/2013 08:45:14 Science communication today 197161JPH_SCIENCE_Cs4_PC.indd 3 13/04/2013 08:45:14 197161JPH_SCIENCE_Cs4_PC.indd 4 13/04/2013 08:45:14 Science communication today International perspectives, issues and strategies Edited by Patrick Baranger and Bernard Schiele Foreword by Jean-Yves Le Déaut Illustrations by Aurélie Bordenave NANCY 2012 197161JPH_SCIENCE_Cs4_PC.indd 5 13/04/2013 08:45:14 © CNRS Éditions, Paris, 2013 ISBN : 978-2-271-07657-1 197161JPH_SCIENCE_Cs4_PC.indd 6 13/04/2013 08:45:14 Foreword Jean-Yves Le Déaut AT THE BEGINNING of this century, knowledge has never been so developed, but confidence in progress has waned. We are not living anymore in one of those glorious times for science and technology, and history has left a somewhat idealized remembrance: the first sparks of the Renaissance in the Netherlands or in northern Italy, along with the invention of printing; the development of major ship- ping companies; the flowering of the creative genius of Leonardo da Vinci; the technical voluntarism of Colbert and Vauban at the end of the 17th century; the Age of Enlightenment characterized by the encyclopaedia of Diderot and d’Alembert; positivism and the constitution of the industrial base of Europe at the end of the 18th century in England, and then in the rest of Europe and in the United States; the quest for material prosperity, generalized in the postwar period; the euphoria of the Thirty Glorious Years and finally, at the very end of the 20th century, the computer and bio- technology revolutions. For each of these periods, one should look more closely and separate the myth from the downsides. CONTESTED PROGRESS Today, the scientific landscape varies. There is an increase in confusing social fears, given the risks. Science has gradually become the ‘not enough thought step’ of politics. Science and technology change the way we live and leave their footprint worldwide, but the scientific project does not appear to be included anymore in a civilization project. Indeed, progress is no longer perceived as a required step inherited from the philosophy of the Age of Enlightenment or as an essential tool to fight poverty, 197161JPH_SCIENCE_Cs4_PC.indd 7 13/04/2013 08:45:14 8 Science communication today conservatism and inequalities. It must be admitted that progress has not benefited all equitably, since 2 billion people still face food and energy scarcities and do not have access to medical care or drugs. Progress is thus seen as ambivalent, generating wellbeing but also social, environmental and economic cliffs. From there, this sense of loss of confidence in science that some call obscurantist reflux. Historically, obstacles to progress originated in religion (and creationism still has some believers in the United States today), but the current trend seems to sacralize nature and accelerates the transition from knowledge to its application. In the current world, where communication is ubiquitous, science often finds itself in the dock. It is questioned, contested and chal- lenged like never before. THE NECESSARY ASSESSMENT OF SCIENTIFIC CHOICES In 1983, the French Parliament, aware of these new questions in society, established the Parliamentary Agency of Scientific and Technological Choices Assessment (OPECST), a bicameral body composed of 18 members and 18 senators. It reacts on scientific or technological issues before the legislative process, helping to define content in certain areas, as happened with nuclear waste manage- ment, nuclear safety, bioethics regulation and the preparation of new laws on the environment. The agency is also involved on the same issues after the legislative process, in a monitoring function of the French Parliament. It held numerous hearings after the nuclear accident in Fukushima. The OPECST uses its role as intermediary between the politi- cal world and the scientific community. It informs, holds hearings, clears some misunderstandings, offers compromises, explains and justifies, and its impartiality guarantees credibility. It is, in fact, an instrument of science communication. Controversies are not invented by science, but they come from the use we make of science. The ‘mad cow’ disease crisis was due to changes in the production of animal feed. The tragedy of asbestos and the refusal of some manufacturers to modify the use of some fibres despite information on the dangers was another case. As far as genetically modified organisms are concerned, the questions asked 197161JPH_SCIENCE_Cs4_PC.indd 8 13/04/2013 08:45:14 Foreword 9 by public opinion highlighted important chunks of information not known or not taken into account by the experts. Nowadays, public opinion requires the ability to question poli- cymakers on the economic, social and environmental consequences of industrial innovations. In this context of suspicion, it is the role of scientific objectivity in the decision- making process that is the subject of controversy. The end of the 20th century was characterized by a crisis of expertise, following health crises (con- taminated blood, mad cow disease, asbestos) and the multiplication of scientific controversies and technologies (genetic modification, electromagnetic waves from mobile phones or antennas, nanote- chnologies). This is why we have developed our hearings in the Parliament to examine transparent, public, collective and contradictory expertise. The process has become more collective. The question of expertise is then linked to the very political question of organization, and we need to open the process of public expertise (national conferences, national debates) and to focus on national, European and international levels but also on regional and local ones. INNOVATION TO THE TEST OF FEAR AND RISK My last report of January 2012, co- published with Claude Birraux1, on innovation to the test of fear and risk, was designed to explore the options that could be implemented so that science is not per- manently put in the dock. We can consolidate our proposals around three ideas: • To fight against disaffection, scepticism and collective ignorance, we advocate the introduction of the popularization of science and technology by teaching the scientific method at school and enhancing scientific and technical information in the media by training mediators and science journalists. In the long term, it is necessary to reorganize education in order to reactivate the 1. L’innovation à l’épreuve des peurs et des risques, report of the Parliamentary Agency for Scientific and Technical Choices Assessment (Rapport de l’office parlementaire de l’évaluation des choix scientifiques et technologiques), no. 4214, 24 January 2012. 197161JPH_SCIENCE_Cs4_PC.indd 9 13/04/2013 08:45:14 10 Science communication today desire to innovate, teaching the beneficial virtues of failure, which are the strengths of future- oriented societies. • In the mid- term, we need to bridge the gap between higher education, research and innovation. This is a task I am very much involved in, at the end of 2012, as part of a mission entrusted to me by the Prime Minister in connection with a broad process of consultation with stakeholders. • Finally, in the short term, we must maximize the leverage effect of the essential public support for innovation. This is a key issue in budget discussions in these times of cuts to fight against the deficit in all western countries. THE CONDITIONS OF THE DEBATE ON ‘SCIENCE AND SOCIETY’ Building the dynamism of an economy through support for innova- tion is certainly a long- term undertaking, because it basically depends on the evolution of science communication methods, which has been at the centre of the debate about ‘science and society’ that has gradually widened since the 1980s. This debate has highlighted a legitimate need for transparency, with which all new legislative adaptations in France will comply. I give as examples the institutionalization in 2006 of a pluralistic working group to develop a three- year plan for radioactive waste management, and the creation in 2008 of an economic, ethical and social committee within the High Council on biotechnologies. But transparency only makes sense for a well- informed pub- lic. Transparency and knowledge are two inseparable conditions. Therefore, citizens and social actors must be allowed to participate in decisions on scientific and technological issues. They require scientific culture to be put again at the centre of our concerns and the state to play a major role in dissemination. The OPECST plays its role, having recently launched a study on possible modalities of further action in this area using different means: education, public consultation and media communication. Science must be a priority in a modern country that places youth at the centre of its priorities. If a country no longer believes in its future, that is a recipe for disaster. Our fellow citizens urge poli- 197161JPH_SCIENCE_Cs4_PC.indd 10 13/04/2013 08:45:14 Foreword 11 cymakers to prepare for the future. Their specific requirements are ambitious. Science must enable them to achieve knowledge advance- ment, to better understand the social and cultural facts, to better understand the world they live in and to create jobs, while protecting them from health, financial and economic crises and preserving the planet, without policymakers really realizing those demands. Science took a major role in democratic life; it must find a more important role in political life. To do so, it is essential to reconcile ethical science and society. It means sharing science so that it becomes a perennial element of our culture. It is not surprising that most of the contributions in this book head in that direction and stress the need, at the international level, for a better dissemination of scientific culture. As far as I am concerned, supporting a society of knowledge and knowledge as a whole must be a founding element of the principle of progress, but citizens remind us that this progress should be controlled and cautious.