Science Communication

The context in which SciCafes operate is changing rapidly. When the Café Scientifique started in the UK it was easy to get publicity because it was considered ridiculous to go into a Café and talk about science rather than just gossip with friends. At that time there was little discussion of science outside academia, and little reporting of science in the press.

But in the last decade science communication has mushroomed, and changed. Ten years ago it was about ‘public understanding of science’, now it is about ‘public engagement with science’. It is now a hot topic among politicians, educators, academics, civil servants, scientists and democrats. Each group has its own interests.

politicians want to be informed about public attitudes and fears,

educators want to create more scientists,

civil servants want to ‘consult’ the public in order to draw up more acceptable proposals,

academic departments expand to initiate the cross discipline of science and media training,

scientists realise their research grants are linked to public concerns,

democratic groups want to change government policies on subjects like climate change.

Now there is nothing wrong with many of these aims. People always use a means to further their own ends, but this is not the public engaging with science, it is science trying to engage with the public. Academics, politicians and educators all say they want to ‘listen’ to the public, but they are only ‘listening’ to responses to their own questions. Everyone says that engagement is a two way thing, but the present fashion for engagement comes from science, politics and academia, rather than from the public.

So where does the Science Café stand in the spectrum of public engagement? Here are some of the distinctive features of the Cafes

They have moved discussion into the public arena. Now academics want to go public, not just the public wanting to be academic.

There is no brief to defend science at all costs. This provides a free and open agenda, allowing people to ask awkward questions.

There is face to face contact with scientists at a community level. But of course there is also the internet, which has enabled us to be international and is opening up many new possibilities.

It is a network, not an organisation in the traditional sense, so we are bottom-up, not top down. Each Café is independent and has its own interests, depending on the local culture and community.

Topics are chosen by the audience and the organisers, not by the scientists. The engagement starts from the public, not science.

So we have no narrow purpose, political, educational, scientific or whatever. The SciCafes will help to bring science back into culture and evenings are spent in a cultural examination of science, from which each member of the audience draws his or her own conclusions. Public discussion is an end in itself – one interesting and enjoyable aspect of cultural exchange. Public engagement will take many forms, but it is important that many of them start from society, with social innovation, rather than from outreach by traditional institutions.

Twenty five years ago ethics and science were considered two completely different disciplines, but now ethics is crucial to any assessment of a science project and what it will accomplish. In the same way, in twenty five years, ‘public engagement’ will be critical to scientific projects and SciCafes are a critically important way of introducing engagement.

So if the aim is just to promote discussion, how will this change anything at all? Many people think that talking is not taking action.

However, a central issue for social scientists, concerned with the conditions necessary for modern democracies, is the emergence of voluntary associations of individuals, especially when they are formed outside the realms of both the political institutions of the state and the intimate ties of the family.

One current theory is that the networks of people engaged in interactive artistic and cultural pursuits create bonds of ‘civility without civil society’. The respect shown for other individuals who have similar interests creates a common civility The civility nurtured in these networks provides patterns for relating to people with whom one only shared ‘weak ties’, rather than the strong ties of the family and politics. In this way new communities of interest and people are formed. Furthermore, weak ties are the strong force behind changes in modern polity, commercial economy and national society. The networks, created by the new community of interests and voluntary associations, matter more than the older, ‘hard categories’ of class, status and gender. In this way, in the modern world, social change is encouraged more by voluntary networks than by institutional planning.

There is no higher purpose in SciCafes other than being stimulated to consider and talk about subjects relevant and important to peoples’ lives. But that produces a new community, based on a common interest. Also the breadth of subjects discussed, from genetics to cosmology, and the quality of information and discussion, often undermines what the audience are told to believe by the media, government, advertisers and other powerful institutions. This provides people with an independent base for thought and action. Informal discussion of science is popular because there is a social and cultural gap between science and popular culture. Informal dialogue is likely to expand in many different directions but its popularity and independence are important in this rapidly changing culture.


    | Powered by