House of Commons Science and Technology Committee Science communication and engagement Eleventh Report of Session 2016–17 Report, together with formal minutes relating to the report Ordered by the House of Commons to be printed 15 March 2017 HC 162 Published on 29 March 2017 by authority of the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee The Science and Technology Committee is appointed by the House of Commons to examine the expenditure, administration and policy of the Government Office for Science and associated public bodies. Current membership Stephen Metcalfe MP (Conservative, South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Chair) Victoria Borwick MP (Conservative, Kensington) Stella Creasy MP (Labour, Co-op, Walthamstow) Jim Dowd MP (Labour, Lewisham West and Penge) Chris Green MP (Conservative, Bolton West) Dr Tania Mathias MP (Conservative, Twickenham) Carol Monaghan MP (Scottish National Party, Glasgow North West) Gareth Snell MP (Labour (Co-op), Stoke-on-Trent Central) Graham Stringer MP (Labour, Blackley and Broughton) Derek Thomas MP (Conservative, St Ives) Matt Warman MP (Conservative, Boston and Skegness) The following were also members of the committee during the parliament: Dr Roberta Blackman-Woods MP (Labour, City of Durham), Nicola Blackwood MP (Conservative, Oxford West and Abingdon) (Chair of the Committee until 19 July 2016), Liz McInnes MP (Labour, Heywood and Middleton), Valerie Vaz MP (Labour, Walsall South), Daniel Zeichner MP (Labour, Cambridge) Powers The Committee is one of the departmental select committees, the powers of which are set out in House of Commons Standing Orders, principally in SO No 152. These are available on the internet via www.parliament.uk. Publication Committee reports are published on the Committee’s website at www.parliament.uk/science and in print by Order of the House. Evidence relating to this report is published on the relevant inquiry page of the Committee’s website. Committee staff The current staff of the Committee are: Simon Fiander (Clerk); Marsha David (Second Clerk); Sean Kinsey (Second Clerk); Dr Elizabeth Rough (Committee Specialist); Martin Smith (Committee Specialist); Amy Vistuer (Senior Committee Assistant); Julie Storey (Committee Assistant); and Shagufta Hailes (Media Officer). Contacts All correspondence should be addressed to the Clerk of the Science and Technology Committee, House of Commons, London SW1A 0AA. The telephone number for general inquiries is: 020 7219 2793; the Committee’s e-mail address is: [email protected]. Science communication and engagement 1 Contents Summary 3 1 Introduction 5 What is science communication? 5 Our inquiry 6 2 Science awareness and communication 7 Public attitudes to science 7 Boaty McBoatface 8 Engagement with young people 9 Role of the media 11 False balance and sensationalism 13 The pressures of the embargo and open access 14 Press regulation 15 3 Science and policy-making 17 Government and dialogue 18 Government policy-making and consultations 22 The ‘anti-lobbying’ clause 24 Conclusions and recommendations 26 Formal Minutes 28 Witnesses 29 Published written evidence 30 List of Reports from the Committee during the current Parliament 34 Science communication and engagement 3 Summary Despite the strong interest in science in many quarters, there is a collective need to do more to take science to those who are not currently engaged. It was encouraging to see that the competition to name the new polar research ship received 124,000 votes for ‘Boaty McBoatface’. There is a wide range of initiatives by organisations to increase public awareness of and engagement in science, including many encouraging projects aimed at children and young people which complement formal science learning. They all play a vital part in further building our ‘science capital’. However, further efforts are needed to change the long-standing cultural biases that pervade science. The BBC has made improvements to its science coverage, although there is an opportunity for it to widen its coverage beyond news and documentaries. The position is less clear in the print and other media which often have an agenda with inadequate place for opposing evidence. There are concerns over the media’s misuse of ‘balance’ and its sensationalism. The illegal media behaviour which prompted the Leveson inquiry, will have done nothing to improve the public’s mistrust of science reporting. The Government should ensure that a robust redress mechanism is provided for when science is misreported. The Government has a responsibility for fostering and facilitating science engagement in its policy-making. It should continue to maintain and strengthen national programmes such as Sciencewise and the National Coordinating Centre for Public Engagement. Their programmes should be routinely used across all government departments, so that public opinion is fully captured in developing government policy where science is involved. Science, politics, finance and the law are all components in the policy-making process. When these components do not fully align, it is the Government’s responsibility to ensure that trade-off decisions between what the ‘science’ says, what is affordable and legal, and ultimately what the public will accept, are transparent. It is not unreasonable for the Government to weight scientific evidence to a lesser or greater extent, but where they do not follow the results they must ensure that they do not dismiss or discredit legitimate scientific evidence. The public consultation process unhelpfully pitches science and other factors together which makes it difficult for a clear foundation of scientific understanding to be established without being co-opted—and misinterpreted—by the political debate. The consultation process should be adjusted so that it addresses the scientific issues separately from the political and other trade-offs. We believe this could bring significant benefits for public engagement and reduce unnecessary disputes over the essential science. Such a separation could allow researchers to more readily confine their debate contributions to the science. If they also contributed to questions on policy implementation and the political trade-offs, that would be more transparent. We agree with the recommendation made by Lord Stern that the Research Excellence Framework (REF) should encompass a definition for ‘impact’ in the system’s assessments that includes a closer association with policy-making. The Government has 4 Science communication and engagement now abandoned plans for an ‘anti-lobbying’ clause in government contracts and grants, which for research grants would have sent precisely the opposite message to the one needed—that there should be the widest and fullest possible science communication and engagement. Science communication and engagement 5 1 Introduction What is science communication? 1. Science affects our everyday lives, not least when science influences (or should influence) how Government makes policy. Dr Karen Bultitude of University College London identified four key motivations for communicating science: • A utilitarian imperative—giving people technical skills and knowledge that will be useful in their wider lives; • An economic imperative—advanced societies require a technologically skilled workforce and science adds to the output of a country; • The cultural imperative—science represents “shared heritage”; and • The democratic imperative—science affects most major decisions in society, so it is important that the public are able to interpret basic scientific information.1 2. Imperial College defined science communication as: An umbrella term covering a wide variety of activities, including, professional communication by scientists; interactions between scientists and members of the public; the media representation of science; and the ways people use scientific knowledge in their own lives.2 3. The Lords Science & Technology Committee in itsScience and Society report in 2000 recommended a move away from presumptions about the public’s lack of scientific knowledge, towards an emphasis on dialogue and engagement.3 Our predecessor Committee examined in 2013 the public’s understanding of the science on climate change, including where people look for science information and how that influences climate change policy. Despite national policies to address climate change, the Committee found little evidence of coordination amongst the Government and its agencies on communicating climate change science.4 4. In 2012, the former Department for Business Innovation & Skills (BIS) concluded from its Science and Society Programme that “public engagement with science in general is gaining momentum but the current audience is largely already interested in science. This means that there is a collective need to do more to take science to those not currently engaged.”5 As a result, the then Science Minister, David Willetts, launched a Charter for Science and Society in March 2014, which included a call for science organisations to “focus on [ … ] target new audiences, embrace diversity and inclusivity, be sensitive to audience needs and perspectives, and engage with others where they naturally congregate”.6 1 Bultitude, K, The Why and How of Science Communication (2011) 2 Imperial College London (COM0014) 3 House of Lords Science & Technology Committee, Science and Society, Third Report, Session 1999–2000 4 House of Commons Science & Technology, Communicating Climate Science, Eight Report, Session 2013–14, HC 254 5 Department for Business,