Thread by @sburall

Sitting in on the "Science and Society, 20 years on: legacy and lessons for a post-Covid world" conference. I'll try to tweet key points that strike me, but not live tweet to avoid spamming you buff.ly/3cnx13O 1/

Kicking off is @jameswilsdon reminding us that the reason for the event is that we are twenty years on since the House of Lords Science and Technology Committee published its seminal report on Science and Society. And the issues in there are still live publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199900/ld… 2/

3/ @jameswilsdon is aiming for an honourable mention by @BCredibility ....

4/ first up is @ASollowayUK Minister for Science, Research and Innovation highlighting key impacts of that report - inc @SMC_London and @Sciencewise

5/ Trust is looming large over the conversation, inevitably and obviously, given COVID 19, as is a strong focus on comms about science, it's excitement and the benefits arising from it.

5/ Hmm, following a robust chat discussion, a lively Q&A window and live tweet is proving quite a challenge...

6/ My take away from @ProfRWinston is that most of the issues in the original report haven't changed much, trust possibly even more of a problem, chat also focusing on this concern - I'm looking for something more focused on solutions

5/ Fiona Fox from @SMC_London now up. She's highlighting that one change is that we're now celebrating scientist visible in the media.

6/ a strong strand in the questions and the chat is that we can't solve the problems of trust and engagement without better understanding of the science by the public. I think this question of understanding works both ways, and scientists need to better understand the public too

7/ Next up is @CEMatterson from @NHM_London - highlighting the importance of the report in making it clear that public concerns are important, and that science's relationship to society is critical to engage with

8/ my perspective is that there is a growing recognition of this, but it's still very much a minority sport - the Minister's opening, for example, focused very much on science comms to promote the benefits of individual scientists research...

9/ ... with no recognition of the question about who is defining these benefits, who is deciding which benefits are worth investing public money in, and that there might be valid concerns and fears flowing from these 'beneficial' scientific advances

10/ @CEMatterson noting that 20 years on there is a recognition now in the UK that a sensible society will engage citizens' in decisions about science and society - I think that I'd say it is a growing recognition

11/ a question has just been asked about whether GM should be seen as a success rather than a failure because the public heard the debate and rejected the technology

12/ Fiona Fox mounting a spirited critique of the question, scientists weren't visible in the debate which was dominated by campaigners.

13/ Personally I'm not sure I agree. I do think the debate was a failure, but not for lack of visibility of scientists, but because all sides were talking (shouting?) past each other, rather than engaging with the publics' concerns in their entirety

14/ and these covered questions of the impact on the economy, concerns about monopoly agriculture, questions about what is or is not 'natural' and so on, much wider than the narrow terrain of risk on which the debate played out

15/ the failure of the debate to engage with these concerns (and even worse), its failure to explore publics' aspirations and hopes for the future (and GMs potential contribution to this) is where the real failure lies.

16/ It's not possible to say where the public would have come out in support or not for GM if the debate had been on these wider terms, and had responded to them.

17/ @ProfRWinston being asked about the 'following the science' line which is the phrase of the moment. He says that the government clearly hasn't been following the science and it's just a phrase, "the govt will hang its head in shame" when the full crisis becomes clear

18/ the moonshot is an example of a scientific promise that can't be delivered he says

19/ @CEMatterson noting that when engaging the public you can't separate out the science from their wider perspectives about the world - a really big thumbs up from me

19/ A big challenge, she says, is that science is now so specialised it's hard for scientists to make these wider links - and I really recognise this.

20/ my question to the panel - isn't the focus on the lack of public understanding in science a one sided view? Don’t we also need scientists to better understand public concerns, hopes and aspirations, and therefore how their science research meets these hopes and aspirations?

21/ Fiona Fox noting that scientists have to stay engaged in the debate and not pop in and out; by staying engaged they'll hear these wider concerns

22/ what this misses is how what scientists are hearing is feeding back into research and policy decisions; how is the 'system' going to engage with these concerns and change the decisions it takes, and demonstrate how the public has affected this change?

23/ Oh dear, I've been pushing my tweets into the void rather than #SciSociety20.... well, not too much of the void, thanks for all the RTs!

I don't feel so bad, looks like @Jackstilgoe has been making the same mistake!!

24/ Brian Wynne highlighting that it's important that the public understands not only the content of science, but how it works, different scientific methods, and the institutions (and their relationship to society), #SciSociety20

25/ @CEMatterson "we can't leave science comms and public engagement to goodwill", it needs to be properly funded - not sure my bubble will disagree with that sentiment #SciSociety20

26/ @vivienneparry chairing the next panel focusing on "Science and Society: priorities & pointers for a post-Covid world" but before it starts @sarahcastell is going to summarise public trust in science

27/ drawing on Mori's work tracking public attitudes to science.

28/ damn forgot to punt into #SciSociety20 again

29/ broadly, she says, public trust in science and scientists is holding up #SciSociety20

30/ since April and Covid they've done 10 waves of the public tracker. unsurprisingly COVID is the most important issue on the minds of the public #SciSociety20

31/ and since COVID trust in scientists have stayed positive - although noticeable that individual stories can temporarily affect that eg Niall Ferguson resigning #SciSociety20

32/ Although conspiracy theories aren't widely believed, if you break it down by demographics there are groups where views about the virus not being real, for example, are more widely held #SciSociety20

33/ <that slide rushed by quickly, but it would be really helpful to reflect on what that means. We talk about Trust as if it is something the whole of society holds, but what does it mean if some communities trust far less? #SciSociety20

34/ we're now in panel time again. First up is @imrankhan who is highlighting Wellcome's global monitor - the UK is a place where science is more trusted compared to other countries, and this is not an accident he says #SciSociety20

35/ he thinks we need to move away from the notion of dialogue and more to thinking about outcomes - what is it we want to achieve #SciSociety20

36/ my response to this is that dialogue, at least in the sense of organisations like @Sciencewise, is only worth doing if it has a clear purpose and stated outcomes - although I'd agree it's a tool not an outcome #SciSociety20

37/ he also wonders if 'dialogue' is classist, does it sound like it's only done by students at Eton? >possibly, but there's already so much focus on words in public engagement I think we need to focus more on why we're doing it #SciSociety20

38/ Next up, @erinmaochu. Focusing us on the importance of ensuring that diverse groups are represented in science, and that scientists listen to and respond to diverse communities - it's an important part of how we generate knowledge #SciSociety20

39/ and she asks an important question - how do scientists share power so that research works for everyone? #SciSociety20

40/ Whistle-stop panel here, next up @Jackstilgoe. He thinks that there's still a fudge in how science thinks about trust. Science sees its role as reaching 'truth' and achieving 'scientific progress', and it too often asks why don't the public buy our vision? #SciSociety20

41/ the big changes since 2000 are the rise of tech and tech companies and growing economic inequality #SciSociety20

42/ and his question is why is optimism in scientific progress (of which tech is part) blinding too many to the impacts of this (and other things I assume) on inequalities? #SciSociety20

43/ next up is @HHHotWheels highlighting the way that the medical model places people with disability within a frame that suggests they are vulnerable, and it misses the point that society is disabling #SciSociety20

44/ he's making the point that it's important that we include disabled people in science - 1 in 5 people in the UK have some form of disability - it's shocking that this still needs to be said #SciSociety20

45/ Not sure that I agree with @vivienneparry that all too often dialogue is focused on getting the public to agree with us, good dialogue has to have an impact sciencewise.org.uk/about-sciencew… #SciSociety20

46/ and dialogue, @imrankhan is pointing out can't increase trust, the number of people is too small. I'm not aware of any dialogue that has an aim at increasing trust... #SciSociety20

... although a wider impact might be increased trust if decisions are more inline with public perspectives #SciSociety20

48/ I think this probably goes to show that those of us concerned about bring more deliberation into decision making are better at communicating what different forms of engagement can and can't do #SciSociety20

49/ I'd be really interested to be pointed towards any serious attempts at public dialogue which make strong claims about increasing public trust #SciSociety20

50/ it's also really important to say that dialogue - meant in the narrow way as used by programmes like @Sciencewise - is only one form of engagement. Mini-publics have an important role, but we mustn't fetishise them. #SciSociety20

51/ Some great questions from @erinmaochu focused on what we want the world to look like and what role does science have to play in this? And how should this play out in different contexts? #SciSociety20

52/ @imrankhan highlighting the fact that the less power communities and individuals have means they are more likely to be left behind by engagement, science and society - highlighting the need to focus on outcomes for these groups #SciSociety20

53/ @sarahcastell making a final call for funders to support work visioning with communities highlighting Nesta's Participatory Futures work nesta.org.uk/project/partic… #SciSociety20

54/ @vivienneparry saying she met someone at a dialogue who said it was his 7th! this is clearly really bad practice in recruitment. Dialogues aren't perfect and can't represent all of society, but it can help reach diversity of views if run effectively #SciSociety20

55/ qu raised: the report 20 years ago focused on how to get the public to trust scientists, but what about scientists trusting the public - @Jackstilgoe highlighting how this attitude persists - and I think this is a critical point #SciSociety20

56/ @erinmaochu highlighting that trust needs ongoing relationships and that power needs to be shared. Big plus one on this one too #SciSociety20

57/ finally up is @OttolineLeyser new CEO of @UKRI_News #SciSociety20

58/ she highlights the gap between science and society still exists and says we need to stop thinking about science and society, to science IN society, it needs to be a full part of it #SciSociety20

59/ she's noting that our current models of the lone scientist solving the world's problems is far from being inclusive, and it's also wrong. She wants to shift the idea of what science looks like so it is more reflective of society #SciSociety20

60/ aargh, 60 tweets, and it's not finished yet! I really wasn't going to tweet so much, must have been interesting, provoking and important #SciSociety20

61/ she's noting all the work going on to run citizen juries, assemblies, etc, and that all this is excellent. However, it is all gap filling. We need to move beyond this, she says, we need to include all the support researchers need as well #SciSociety20

62/ on her notion that this engagement is gap filling, I wholeheartedly agree. We wouldn't need to do much public engagement if our science (and wider decision-making) were properly inclusive and representative of society... #SciSociety20

63/ ... putting me out of a job would be a good indicator of success #SciSociety20

64/ it's a much more inclusive view of science than I've heard from the top before and refreshing. I guess my only question is how it actually takes form within the scientific enterprise #SciSociety20

65/ it's a big question though and touches on questions of the system as a whole, incentives within the system (of which @UKRI_News is only in partial control) and many other things the chat, twitter thread and presentations covered #SciSociety20

66/ thanks to @UKRI_News and @RoRInstitute for putting on such a stimulating conversation, it isn't the same as being there, lots of people in the chat and on twitter I'd love to have met properly, but a great substitute #SciSociety20

67/ ok, that's it, I promise. If my musings on what other people are saying about public engagement, science and society aren't your thing, thanks for sticking with me #SciSociety20