A taste for science

By Dr. Sean Perera

Efforts to engage members of the public with science are sometimes described as a smorgasbord of scientific activities. The term smorgasbord is derived from the Swedish word for the better known Sri Lankan concept of a buffet meal, where guests have the option of selecting from a wide variety of different choices. Similarly, a smorgasbord of scientific activities is intended to offer experiences about various scientific phenomena.

A typical smorgasbord of scientific activities may take the form of science demonstrations, hand-on activities, talks and exhibits.

A typical smorgasbord or buffet

This method of communicating science raises, however, the question of how many non-specialist audience members will savour the favours of science smorgasbord offerings so that they will return to taste them again.

In a recent conference at the Australian National University in Canberra, the term language-tasters was offered to describe current trends among students who study language subjects at university. Contrary to tradition, it has been found that many students now may learn a language as a novel learning experience, without the intention of pursuing advanced qualifications in that language.

Science tasters

I wondered, therefore, if similarly there would be science-tasters – those people who may only wish engage limitedly with science. Thus the smorgasbord-type feast of science shows, exhibitions and perhaps the odd science course at university may be, in fact, as far as science-tasters are willing to pursue scientific engagement.

While there is the potential for some science-tasters to develop a flavour for science and return as consumers, the majority intention may merely be to experience a taste of science. Therefore, the question needs to be asked: What if the purpose of science communication is incompatible with the scientific engagement requirements of non-specialist audiences – are science engagement efforts trying to make consumers of those who only wish to taste science?

Members of the public engaging with science activities at a Shell Questacon show.

Public understanding of science

To answer this question, we need to look closely at our society and how science communication has evolved alongside social change. In the information-rich and research-inundated society to which we belong, both specialist and non-specialist groups are overwhelmed alike by numerous sources of scientific information, disseminated popularly via the internet. Despite the enormous influence and impact science has on our daily lives, it is not feasible to expect non-specialists, or even for that matter specialists, to be educated and well-informed about all aspects of science. The demise of the deficit model, which emphasised the necessity for non-specialist publics to understand science is, therefore, reasonable.

Moreover, a technocratic approach to decision-making is overruled by the availability and easy access to scientific information. Hence governments are no longer able to make decisions merely based on the advice of experts alone. Public opinion is consulted to inform national choices in varying degrees by both post-industrial nations and their counterparts in the process of gaining technological momentum.

Even in Sri Lanka, the Ministry of Science and Technology and the National Science Foundation make conscious efforts to seek public opinion through active scientific engagement. It is clear, therefore, that there is a universal push towards both specialist and non-specialist public participation in national decision-making.

Participation in science

However, we return once again to the question of how non-specialist members of the public are able to engage in scientific decision-making, if their intention is only to be science-tasters. To answer that question, public engagement in science needs to be considered more closely.

It could be said that the move toward scientifically engaging non-specialist audiences contrast with top-down approaches in decision-making as well as addressing the public’s scientific knowledge deficits. However, engagement responds to the need for non-specialist audiences to participate in science.

In my opinion, participation is not merely a matter of non-specialist audiences willing to receive scientific information presented by scientific specialists. More importantly, it is the act of non-specialist audiences willingly contributing to scientific engagement by sharing their own expertise. Likewise, scientific specialists need to be prepared to receive from non-specialists. Participation with reference to scientific engagement involves, therefore, both receiving and contributing by both specialists and non- specialists.

Returning to the question of the smorgasbord-type feast of science communication, it is clear that some non-specialists are satisfied to participate by being science-tasters; hence they are willing only engage limitedly with science. If this is their intent, not to engage further, it should be respected. However, I believe that their refusal to participate further arises from the fact that smorgasbord-type science communication does not offer non-specialist audiences the opportunity to contribute. While they are offered the opportunity to partake in science, they are not given the chance to bring their own expertise to the table. This deficiency, as I see it, is the cause for science-tasters failing to return as consumers of science.

Science-tasters becoming consumers of science

In order to attract more science-tasters to continue to participate and be regular consumers of science, smorgasbord-type science communication interventions need to go beyond being a showcase, and should invite more non-specialists audience participation through active contribution. This would require the promotion of a shared identity for science; one in which non-specialists identify and feel belonging. This would require presentation of not only scientific phenomena, but more importantly elements from everyday phenomena. In essence, the smorgasbord-type feast needs to feature staples, familiar features, from the non-specialists’ perspectives as well.

Some examples may include discussions about the history and philosophy of science, or the use of commonplace materials to showcase scientific concepts. In Sri Lanka, these efforts could take the form of scientific discussions in the context of our Hydraulic Civilisation in the Dry Zone or, for instance, the methods employed in traditional food preparation. While such approaches may offer a helpful backdrop in the form of familiar tableware to the smorgasbord, I believe the main ingredients featured on the smorgasbord would still beckon limited non-specialist engagement.

Sigiriya Rock Fortress

In order to encourage purposeful and effective participation of non-specialists audiences with science, the dishes on the smorgasbord need to be prepared by them; thus maintaining that their participation is a familiar experience. Such an approach would serve to ensure that non-specialist members of the public would no longer be one-time science-tasters but regular consumers of science. Moving towards this new paradigm of science communication is challenging, it requires re-imaging science as an everyday human endeavour.

The author of this article, Dr Sean Perera ([email protected]), is a Researcher at the Australian National Centre for the Public Awareness of Science at the Australian National University in Canberra - Australia’s premier research university. Dr Perera’s research explores science communication issues cross-culturally.