In this final bit about science public relations (pr) and marketing (and public engagement) in Canada, I’m going to mention programmes that are in place and, finally, discuss public engagement.

The goal for science pr and marketing is not to sell products but to sell the notion of science as important. Consequently, these practices have an educational focus.

The government’s National Science and Technology Week from Oct. 16 – 25, 2009 features a pretty good mix (in BC anyway) of programmes for children, families, and adults. The Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics (funded by philanthropists, notably Mike Laziridis founder and co-CEO of Research in Motion, and the government) is hosting the Quantum to Cosmos (Q2C) Festival from Oct. 15 – 25, 2009 in Waterloo, Ontario and online.

The Science and Technology Awareness Network (STAN) is a relatively new organization with this mission (from their website).

The Science and Technology Awareness Network enhances the profile and influence of the science and technology education and public awareness sector. STAN is a member driven organization comprising over 240 public and private sector institutions, including government ministries, school boards, corporations, museums, science centres and individuals.

They’re having their sixth annual conference Nov. 9 and 10, 2009, in Ottawa, Canada. There are news items about science and technology outreach programmes but their main purpose is to act as a hub for science education and public awareness (which can also be classified as science pr and marketing).

I should also mention science centres which are focused on raising awareness and on education (pr and marketing) about science. They function year round and are the most consistent purveyors of science awareness. Their target audience and market is usually children and families.

Earlier (in part 4a) I noted that Canadian scientists have not banded together and developed public awareness programmes with the same enthusiasm and flair shown by their US counterparts. I’ll stand by my comments but I’m happy to note that the Canadian Stem Cell Foundation has posted a video, Rock Star Scientists, on their site. (Thank you Rob Annan at Don’t leave Canada behind.  The link I’ve provided is to Rob Annan’s blog posting as I’m having difficulty accessing the video, also I strongly encourage you to read his commentary.)

It’s worth mentioning that there is a very well known activist group headquartered in Canada, the ETC Group. They too practice public awareness and education (science pr and marketing) campaigns. From their website,

ETC Group …or Action Group on Erosion, Technology and ConcentrationETC Group is dedicated to the conservation and sustainable advancement of cultural and ecological diversity and human rights. To this end, ETC Group supports socially responsible developments of technologies useful to the poor and marginalized and it addresses international governance issues and corporate power.

The organization provides important critical commentary on many science topics. The thoroughly researched material varies from easily understandable to quite technical.

While we have not experienced controversies at the scale that occurred in the UK (mad cow disease, genetically modified food) and the US (stem cell research), Canadian scientists and Canadians did go through these  science crises and public engagement exercises arose in their wake.

I have commented in the past (here) about the positive and negative aspects of public engagement exercises. Briefly, the public does need to be engaged in science and be heard from but (a) it’s not a guarantee against negative public opinion and (b) visionary work is often not appreciated by the group until much later. (In marketing circles, holding a focus group for feedback about a genuinely new product is not considered a good strategy as groups tend be quite conservative. Discussing an innovation of an already familiar product  is fine but not a product that has never before existed.)

In that light, it was very intriguing to watch the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies, Sept. 29, 2009 live webcast, Nanotechnology, synthetic biology and biofuels: What does the public think? (archived webcast has not yet been posted) They did use focus groups to discuss some very new technology and science but the discussion was informed by anthropology- and sociology-based techniques with finely grained analysis.

A comment that I found quite striking was that the participants wanted more information about science in their everyday lives. The presenter’s response to that was “you can take a horse to water but you can’t make it drink.” That’s the problem with science communication, figuring out how to get the science to the public.This can be a tricky process for any number of reasons.

Yesterday, I noted that a lot of people are intimidated by science and (with the possible exception of health issues) won’t even look at articles and materials that touch on the subject. Nonetheless, I do think we (Canadians particularly) need to try harder because, if even 10% of the work currently being developed in laboratories influences products and production processes, our lives are going to be dramatically transformed.