Tag Archives: Richard Jones

Final thoughts on public understanding of science exercises

I started a series of posts about public/engagement/consultation/understanding of science projects on Jan.14.09 (here) after reading Richard Jones’s and Andrew Maynard’s posts on the topic. I digressed somewhat from the point they were making about the potential usefulness of these projects for science literacy (as I recall that wasn’t actually stated; I think it was strongly implied) and for discussing the kinds of science funding for projects and products that the public wants and will accept.

I have a final point after registering some concern that public engagement, etc. projects are sometimes misused as prophylactic treatments (for public panics about science) and pointing out that the public does make its preferences for scientific applications known through the marketplace (although possibly describing that process as a collaboration was a bit excessive on my part).

There’s been some research on risk and culture done by the folks at the Cultural Cognition Project at Yale Law School. They seem to be suggesting that the public’s assessment and response to risk regarding emerging technologies such as nanotechnology is rooted in factors and cultural (not ethnicity or high art but individualism vs. communitarianism) attitudes which are relatively fixed. (I have more about that project here and here in previous postings.)

I have a problem with this thinking and here’s why. If you look at the material that was written about electriciy when that technology was being introduced (When Old Technologies were New by Carolyn Marvin), you’ll find some very similar attitudes and comments to what was then an emerging new technology in the marketplace. Presumably, people haven’t changed that much since the 19th century. Marvin’s book points out startling similarities regarding concerns and anxieties then and now.

Still, we have electricity (electric light, telephones, etc.) in our homes, on our persons, and at the office. Somehow in the midst of the public panics and anxieties, we instituted the changes and eventually took them for granted.

I think that in the end the adoption or nonadoption of emerging technologies can be viewed as a process, a kind of dynamic conversation with an outcome which cannot be determined beforehand. After all, the concept of an atom was first proposed by Leucippus in 4?? BCE. It took many centuries and changes before we seriously undertook the idea around the 17th century CE to develop science as we understand today.

One quick thing: I found this site about art history very interesting. Smarthistory is being developed as an online resource. It’s easy to use and it’s been put together by Beth Harmon, Director of Digital Learning at the Museum of Modern Art in New York and many other informed folks.

Scientists collaborating with the public

Leave a reply

This series started after I read a couple of postings by Richard Jones on his blog Soft Machines and Andrew Maynard on his blog 2020 Science. I have wandered somewhat off the track of their discussion which was about public engagement/consultation/understanding of science outreach projects as a way for scientists to communicate about their work and to get feedback from members of the public about the kinds of practical applications that would be useful and acceptable to the public. Jones’s blog entry is here, Maynard’s blog entry is here, and this series starts here.

One of my favourite collaboration stories is one about Thomas Edison who introduced the gramophone (or record player) to the public as a device for talking books. He went around demonstrating how you could record someone reading a book aloud onto silver foil which could then be played on a gramophone. At the end of the demonstration, audience members were given pieces of the silver foil as souvenirs. (You can find the story in the book, New Media; 1740 – 1915, edited by Lisa Gitelman and Geoffrey B. Pingree, MIT Press 2003.) Despite the initial enthusiasm, the public did not accept this talking book concept but the device did gain acceptance as a way of listening to music. I’m not sure you can call it collaboration as such but there was some sort of informal feedback process at work. Most likely it was a case of various innovators/entrepreneurs trying to sell this new listening device for all kinds of purposes until somebody stumbled onto music recordings.

The collaborative process is being introduced more formally and at a much earlier stage than in previous generations (as far as I can tell). It seems to be more inclusive and more interactive as per Jones’s essay where he cites a project where members of the public indicated which kinds of applications they favoured. This information was then used to create guidelines for funding of research projects in the UK.

I think that the kind of interaction is valuable and I hope it continues. I also hope that the more speculative (pie in the sky) work also gets supported.

Public understanding/engagement of nanotechnology in Canada?

3 Replies

There’s an interesting series of postings about public Understanding of science (it has a hideous acronym: PUS although I think some people are now using this one: PUoS). The main discussion starts with Richard Jones on his blog Soft Machines. Basically, he sums up the history of public understanding of nanotechnology in UK while providing some additional discussion and Andrew Maynard writes a ‘companion’ piece about the situation in the US. Both Jones and Maynard are scientists and advisors to various government and non governmental organizations. For the Jones material, go here and for the Maynard material, go here. I started with Dexter’s Johnson’s (IEE) comments about both postings here.

I am deeply jealous that there are programmes and interest in the UK and the US since there aren’t any here in Canada. We’ve done some of that kind of work in the area of biotechnology (much of it focused on genomics) but the nanotechnology end of things has been pretty much ignored, so far as I can tell. (Note: Quebec may be an exception. I have not scanned French language materials.) There is a National Institute of Nanotechnology but they don’t give out much information about their projects or their role for that matter.

it’s tempting to condemn the Canadian federal government and its policies regarding science generally and nanotechnology specifically but I dunno. Formal processes such as public meetings and forums and exercises are useful and can be quite meaningful but they will not obliterate the possibility of public misunderstandings, panic and hysteria, one of the unstated goals of public understanding or engagement in science.

The big panic that comes to mind is ‘frankenfoods’. That word which fused a pop culture icon emblematic of anxieties about science to concerns about food came to describe the whole of biotechnology. It’s a more complicated story as there a number of actors in the drama but this is the short version and for a lot of people the word ‘frankenfood’ acted as a kind of shorthand. They didn’t have to understand the debates or any of the issues. We all do that sort of thing one way or another. There’s just too much information and too many ideas with not enough time and, sometimes, not enough interest.

‘Frankenfood’ was first mentioned in a letter to the New York Times. It was written by someone who has written many letter criticizing science and technology and there was no way to know that this time something different was about to happen.

I will continue tomorrow.

Trying to understand nano

1 Reply

Just finished a book by Richard Jones called Soft Machines (blog here)…it’s been very helpful…he describes ideas and concepts that help to clarify some of what I’ve been reading online (I got Bloglines to perform a nanotech search) which I read on an almost daily basis…but everything is mixed together so you get very technical scientific information mixed with nano opinion makers, a fair chunk of nonsense, and business style (pretty puffy on occasion) info…anyway, it’s been tough trying to tease out what it all means or might mean when I’m missing some of the basic science concepts and that’s where Soft Machines came in very handy…he does make a few assumptions e.g. that you’ve heard of James Clerk Maxwell and Michael Faraday…(well, I knew one name but couldn’t quite remember why)…thankfully it’s not a big problem, you can understand what he’s talking about from the context…I just wish that my copy had an index and the Recommended Reading listed in the Table of Contents…I guess even the Oxford University Press makes the odd mistake…oh and Jones is funny too…not all the time, it’s not a humour book but just enough to keep it lively…

As for the Canadian nanotechnology scene…apparently nothing happened yesterday…

FrogHeart

Commentary about nanotech, science policy and communication, society, and the arts

Tag Archives: Richard Jones

Final thoughts on public understanding of science exercises

Scientists collaborating with the public

Public understanding/engagement of nanotechnology in Canada?

Trying to understand nano