The Evolution of ‘Public Understanding of Science’: Public Engagement as a Tool of Science Policy in the UK

Abstract

This historical review surveys the evolution of the science–society relationship in post‐war Britain. It observes the transformation since the 1980s of the idea of ‘public understanding of science’, in which scientists and laypeople differ by virtue of the scientific knowledge they have, into the idea of ‘public engagement which science’, in which scientists, laypeople and policy makers negotiate policy for future science and technology. We survey recent critiques of public engagement which draw attention to the ways in which it constructs particular publics, and which question its capacity to contribute to policy‐making.

Naming is framing: the public understanding of scientific names

“…Since the publication of the report The public understanding of science (Bodmer, 1985), there has been an ever-growing interest in scientific circles about the way people evaluate technologies (Gregory & Lock, 2008;Gupta, Fischer & Frewer, 2012).…”

“…The report was initiated because of the increasing public scepticism about science and technology (Gregory & Lock, 2008). According to the authors, the negative attitudes towards science and technology were the result of a lack of understanding.…”

“…One reason is that alternatives to the deficit model closely resemble it (Wynne, 2006). The deficit model's educational approach, in which the public are more or less passive receivers of 'correct facts', has been replaced with approaches in which members of the public play a more active role (Gregory & Lock, 2008).…”

“…Fuelled by controversial technologies such as nuclear energy and GM (Gregory & Lock, 2008), people have started to fear and reject scientific developments and to mistrust experts (see also Löfstedt, 2005). The lack of public support put pressure on the funding of research (Gregory & Miller, 1998;Yearley, 2000).…”

“…In recent decades, a public that initially celebrated science are now becoming more critical (Gregory & Lock, 2008). Fuelled by controversial technologies such as nuclear energy and GM (Gregory & Lock, 2008), people have started to fear and reject scientific developments and to mistrust experts (see also Löfstedt, 2005).…”