After many years of working in the area of the public communication of science, where do you think we’re heading?
In fact, after many years working in the public communication of science at the Scientific and Technology Cultural Center in Grenoble, in 1988 I got involved as a researcher in this field with the creation of the Research Laboratory on Scientific and Technical Communication and Information (LABCIS) and then, in 1989, at the University of Poitiers, with the International Network on Public Communication of Science and Technology, which held its international conference in 2004 in Barcelona and its conference in 2006 in Seoul, South Korea.
Where are we heading now? The scientific cultural action of the 1970s and 80s tried to deal with the discourse and practice of dissemination by affirming the power of questions posed by non-specialists. Since then, we have witnessed a movement very keen to promote scientific cultural centers and museums, especially in Europe and more extensively in the rest of the world. The basic slogan, which is a little tautological, was “science for science’s sake because science is essential in today’s world and it is absolutely necessary – indispensable – to disseminate it everywhere and to as many people as possible…” As if repeating this sentence were all it took to make the historic project of scientific dissemination a reality!
.
Today they are still building “cathedrals” to celebrate science. But sometimes it seems like the celebration is more important than the sciences themselves.
.
The Science and Culture Center in Shanghai is an immense concrete and glass monster where the space devoted to scientific exhibits is ludicrously small compared to the overwhelming size of the building. Why is that? Just to organize spectacular inaugurations? In general, what really works in terms of effective communication requires much less money and can usually be implemented through projects at the local and community level.
Except for some major success stories of certain science and culture centers, which are not necessarily the biggest or the most monumental, the effective cost per visitor, or what advertisers refer to as the “cost per thousand impacts”, is incredibly high in this field without any guarantee of quality results. It makes you wonder whether science, as it moves toward society and becomes so indispensable, necessary and legitimate, hasn’t ended up being isolated due to a lack of humility, a lack of understanding, even a lack of social and cognitive hybridization, as if it could, all by itself, redefine the world and diversity that never needed it to exist. As if all debates were defined based on science. What an imperialism!
Although much more is being invested in science, scientific vocations are still being lost in Europe, the United States and the world in general. What are we doing wrong?
It is a very serious problem that cannot be handled through persuasive communication alone. Of course, it is always possible to argue and complain that an understanding of science and technology is essential in today’s world. No one would dare affirm the contrary, or that you don’t need to study science at the university! However, the drop in the number of people enrolled in scientific majors at universities is a widespread reality. Instead of uselessly vociferating about how we need to turn this trend around, it would be better to try to understand why it is happening in today’s world.
.
Why are people less eager to study the sciences? And why don’t we ask questions about science teaching and the widespread image of the sciences, especially in the media and at science and culture centers?
.
In my opinion, the word “sciences” is used too much against what science really is, its methods and, to quote Gaston Bachelard, its problems. Problems are something that affect and touch everyone and can be used to get much closer to non-specialists. But why not focus on this marvelous potential instead of using a word that frightens, separates, selects and creates distance? Speaking of the sciences is like getting wrapped up in an authoritative discourse when the reality is that the sciences are basically critical, curious and irreverent, given that all truth is temporary until proven otherwise.
.
How can a country deal with the so-called knowledge society if a good part of its population does not understand even the most basic scientific principles?
A very interesting question. But before I answer, what is this so-called “knowledge society”? In my latest book (Le réveil du samouraï, Dunod, 2006), I describe practices aimed at creating knowledge used by a growing number of the Japanese organizations I studied in the early 2000s. The translation of the main concept they use is “strategic communities for the creation of knowledge in collaboration” or, more simply, “knowledge communities”. These communities bring together a mixed group of players either face to face, over the Internet or a through mixture of the two. The members have different functions and natures, but share a common topic or interest and meet to contribute, exchange and create the knowledge they need.
This collaboration strategy implies there is a strong feeling of respect and courtesy toward the other members to be able to advance as a group toward the creation and enrichment of operative knowledge that is useful for all, in accordance with a virtuous logic of going ever deeper and constantly moving forward. They might be working in anything from healthcare and neighborhood life to economic objectives, but each party, the customers and the companies, obtain benefits. However, if the people involved do not participate voluntarily and because they believe in it, the process immediately breaks down and wears thin.
.
Going back to scientific principles, at the risk of disappointing you, the truth is I can’t imagine how principles of biology and physics can be useful when it comes to forming part of society!
.
However, things that seem much more necessary are the scientific method and scientific rigor, how to construct a reasoned argument, how to be critical and how to formulate a problem (going back to Bachelard)? We miss the point when the focus is on content as an end in itself, as if it were the be-all and end-all of the public communication of the sciences and even scientific culture.
.
The questioning, the method, the stimulus involved in an investigation process are infinitely more beneficial for the intelligence of the people of today and the future than carts full of content and “savoir non su”, as people said in the 1970s.
.
For non-specialists, the possibilities of being able to prove a new or old scientific proposal are no higher now than they were in the past. Without any scientific baggage from school, all they can do is believe or reject what they are told and what is presented to them! Now I ask you, is that very scientific?
Will the power created by science make it the exclusive property of a select few?
I’m not sure if we should talk about the power created by science or the economic power generated by scientific options that are chosen because they are considered to be profitable! Scientists are rarely aware of this “power”. Most of them work to produce results without worrying about their impact or consequences. It is the public-relations people who then take charge of communicating the fact that a specific laboratory came up with something useful for society.
.
The activity of producing scientific knowledge is extremely demanding and competitive. It is done at the planetary level in accordance with certain requirements that heavily favor the United Kingdom, the United States and Canada, which control the primary communication networks, i.e. the publication networks and the networks for the recognition of research findings. The result is a way of thinking and presenting research results that is impregnated with the specific peculiarities of a single culture and language. And that’s a fact.
.
John Maddox, the former editor of Nature, said at a conference in Barcelona once that he tended to reject papers by French scientists because the first third of their articles were always devoted to contextualization and that, according to John Maddox, was just not scientific! I remember interviewing Dr. Rainer Flohl, who used to be in charge of the science section of Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, who said without prompting that the articles of scientific journalists from the United Kingdom, the United States and Canada were childish and grievously lacking in contextualization. By that I just want to point out that not only economics, but also culture affects the sciences and how they are developed.
In some of your work you have highlighted the importance of the “why, how, when and where” of communicating with your audience. What is the ideal way to do this with the general public?
I was trying to insist on the need to reason strategically by first presenting the question of the purpose of the public communication of the sciences and then proposing a three-fold objective: creating ties between scientific communities and society, sharing knowledge by stimulating the intelligence and, finally, enhancing the creativity of non-scientists. The next question is how, i.e. the progress of the strategy? But this is predominately a rational question.
.
The priority target audience for scientific dissemination should logically be the people that do not have access to the sciences and are the most removed from them.
.
This is not the case of museum goers, science students, people who read specialized supplements and journals, and especially not the schoolchildren that help museums inflate their attendance figures! I’m not saying that school children shouldn’t be a target. Quite the contrary! I’m just trying to take a critical look at the matter.
Finally, the third part of the strategic rocket is tactics: the effective encounter with the public, which is where the decision is made, where the three purposes of scientific dissemination come together. This leads us to “when and where”. Tactics is the real criterion of the effectiveness of strategy.
.
You can have the best intentions in the world (and sharing scientific culture is one of them), but if you are not capable of presenting them where “the decision is made”, you run the risk of failing miserably
.
You’ve got the wrong approach to the problem! That’s why it’s more reasonable to forget about the scientific content in the beginning and concentrate more on aspects directly related to the target audience. In general, when you say, “We’re going to communicate about science,” you scare off the non-specialists, who figure it’s not for them or who think they might be thrust into a situation they simply do not understand. And I’m not talking about the legions of schoolchildren on an obligatory field trip who spend most of their time pressing one button after another to see if anything happens! Museum goers in general are either scientists or people who are convinced that scientific culture is important. And yet one of the real objectives of scientific dissemination is connecting with those people who would never go to a museum on their own initiative.
Coming up with questions together and moving jointly toward a solution is much more motivating and scientific than the professional promotion of closed, finished discourses that say what science has said, done and observed, and are written in stone and will never change. With this approach, the audience can do nothing but be passive and receptive and make no contribution other than to participate in trick scenarios where all they have to do is guess the answer.
And what about children?
.
You could say that, due to their very nature, children are willing, curious and irreverent, which are all great scientific qualities!
.
I’m afraid I form part of the sizable group of people who are disappointed by the way the sciences are being taught as dry, worn-out subjects, and how they are being used as a way of weeding people out and demonstrating authority and exclusivity. This is a reality that has caused so much damage it will be hard to fix, despite all the goodwill and inventiveness of public communicators of science.
The education system is so clogged up that enthusiastic teachers who really want to teach and make the scientific method accessible seem like UFOs flying overhead and, paradoxically, no one takes them seriously. On the other hand, there is an organized model with a good approach to the problem: the program La Main à la Pâte, which is a worldwide success and helps develop kids’ investigation skills.
What do you think are the best tools for efficient public communication of science?
Just to be the devil’s advocate, I would say no tool at all. I would go back to the power of the question, to respect for the people you’re talking to, to the importance of the collaborative effort. If you tell someone, “I’m going to explain everything to you and if you listen closely and learn what I tell you, you’ll know it all, though you won’t have any experimental proof”, that would be it. It would all be over. There would be no room for creation or for relationships because this kind of practice assumes there is one pre-existing truth (scientific, of course) and it’s just a question of admitting it. It’s sad because this doesn’t go anywhere; the dice have been tossed, as it were. We might as well say, “It’s all over. Amen!” How do you expect to be creative and get people involved in a process like that?
Communicating with the public on scientific topics is becoming more and more of a challenge. First of all, you have to spark the interest of the people you are talking to instead of trying to force them to learn dry content. Once again the principles and methodology of La Main à la Pâte strike me as being exemplary because they start with real questions kids ask about their day-to-day lives and their surroundings and not the kinds of questions raised with an approach where the kids have to guess what they’re supposed to say. With La Main à la Pâte, the kids continue by participating in real investigation and methodology that includes all the stages in the scientific process: stating the problem, expressing and communicating the results and discussing the matter.
.
It’s necessary to engage kid’s curiosity and develop their ability to reflect, act, and expand their intelligence and independence instead of forcing them to learn dry content they’ll soon to forget.
.
Finally, how can fraud in science be dealt with, bearing in mind that these frauds lead to a lack of trust and uncertainty in science among the general public? I’m referring to the case of the South Korean, Hwang Woo Suk, whose work was validated by some of the world’s most renowned scientific journals.
Because he was very close to the international validation system for scientific advances, i.e., because he had a very close relationship with the publication system, Robert Gallo was able to appropriate the discovery of the team of Frenchman Luc Montagnier of the Pasteur Institute through the abusive use of a sample he claimed was his own. And he did it to claim he was the first to identify the AIDS virus. Despite how hard it tried, the Pasteur Institute, supported by the French government, was not able to prevent Gallo from receiving scientific prestige and considerable royalties! Only because the United States is a great democratic nation where the press has real power was it possible to unmask the fraud.
.
Discovering and exposing frauds is the job of scientists and, to some extent, journalists, because they form part of the world scientific system, the gigantic communication enterprise.
.
Exposing a fraud can be a wonderful occasion to explain what science is, what it is not and how new scientific proposals are recognized. Investigators are men and women like everyone else who defend their own personal and cultural interests, not to mention their geopolitical interests. The fact that they are scientists does not excuse them from criticism. Humanizing science and scientists is always healthy. It creates a bond between them and common mortals!
.
