Having recently finished Robert Winston’s “Bad Ideas? An Arresting History of our Inventiveness,” I was rather taken by his concluding “Scientist’s Manifesto” – a fourteen-point guide to help strengthen the relationship between science and society. As well as reflecting much of my own thinking, it embodies many of the ideas coming out of the science communication and engagement community in recent years – although thankfully it lacks much of the jargon that usually accompanies these ideas.
The manifesto is very much a work in progress – Winston refers to it as a “starting point.” But even in its current form, it challenges scientists to think about their work in a broader context, and to engage more fully with the society that supports them and ultimately stands to be impacted by them – for good or bad:
A Scientist’s Manifesto – Professor Robert Winston
1. We should try to communicate our work as effectively as possible, because ultimately it is done on behalf of society and because its adverse consequences may affect members of the society in which we all live. We need to strive for clarity not only when we make statements or publish work for scientific colleagues, but also in making our work intelligible to the average layperson. We may also reflect that learning to communicate more effectively may improve the quality of the science we do and make it more relevant to the problems we are attempting to solve.
2. Communication is two-way process. Good engagement with the public is not merely a case of imparting scientific information clearly. It involves listening to and responding to the ideas, questions, hopes and concerns the public may have. We should accept that this kind of engagement with the public is a matter of good citizenship. We should reflect that sometimes proper dialogue with various sections of the public may inform some aspects of our work. Moreover, it can make any technology that is developed from our work more relevant to the needs of the public and less likely be dangerous.
3. The media, whether written, broadcast or web-based, play a key role in how the public learn about science. We need to share our work more effectively by being as clear, honest and intelligible s possible in our dealings with journalists. We also need to recognize that misusing the media by exaggerating the potential of what we are studying, or belittling the work of other scientists working in the field, can be detrimental to science.
4. We need to recognize that the science we do is not entirely our property. Whether the taxpayer helps fund our scientific education or not, most of our training and research is paid for by the public – in grants from the research councils or charities. The public has a major stake in the ownership of what we do.
5. Whenever possible, we should always consider the ethical problems that may be raised by the applications of our work. Some scientists have claimed that science does not have a moral value; but while pure knowledge may be ethically neutral, the way this knowledge is gained and the use to which it is put can involve many difficult ethical issues.
6. We should reflect that science is not simply ‘the truth’ but merely a version of it. A scientific experiment may well ‘prove’ something, but a ‘proof’ may change with the passage of time as we gain better understanding. Mere assertion that something is fact will not persuade many people of the rightness of what we say. It is worth bearing in mind that sometimes two well-conducted experiments can give conflicting results that are equally valid. Science is not absolute; it is often about uncertainty.
7. It is understandable and proper that we scientists are immensely proud of what we discover, but it is easy to forget that this special knowledge can sometimes breed a culture of assumed omnipotence and arrogant assertion. We need to avoid arrogance because it can lead to misinterpretation of data and to conflict instead of collaboration with colleagues. Moreover, arrogance is likely to damage the reputation of science by increasing public mistrust.
8. Scientists are regularly called upon to assess the work of other scientists or review their reports before publication. While such peer review is usually the best process for assessing the quality of scientific work, it can be abused. When conducting peer review, we should try to ensure that we are fair and scrupulous and not acting out of a vested interest.
9. We should try to see our science in a broad context, but also be aware of the limitations of our personal expertise. We should consider that, when talking outside our own subject, we may be more likely to mistake the facts of a case. We should be particularly cautious about making predictions about the future of science, not least because creating unrealistic expectations can be damaging.
10. Governments, whether totalitarian, oligarchic or democratically elected, usually have vested interests. Such interests are not necessarily conducive to good research or to good use of the fruits of knowledge. Government control of science can have malign influence. This is certainly true of totalitarian governments, but misuse of science is very common in virtually all liberal democracies, including our own. It is difficult for scientists to retain independence from politicians, because politicians ultimately make many key funding decisions. But we need to keep some distance from politicians, and should not avoid criticizing their decisions where we feel they are wrong or dangerous.
11. Commercial interests, so often promoted by governments and universities, cannot be disregarded if technology is to be exploited for public good. But scientists need to be aware of the dangers of conflicts of interest and to retain a sense of balance, because commercial interests can be a bad influence on scientific endeavour. The history of science shows that the over-eager or narrow-minded pursuit of commercial interests can lead to the loss of public trust.
12. In the Western world, most of our best basic science is done in universities. But historically, universities have been élite and mysterious institutions, and even today they are sometimes perceived as rather threatening places where the complex and unintelligible takes place. Those of us working in universities should try to help foster a new culture of open access to our institutions and, where we can, help strengthen activities which involve community service and outreach. Where possible we should do our best to support whatever aspect of public engagement is taken by the university.
13. Schools have the most vital role to play in encouraging young people to see the magnificence of the natural world. But sadly, at present, many schools actively discourage children from appreciation of the wonders of science. We should try to support initiatives that may promote more practical and experimental work for children, and show our appreciation of inspirational teachers and their teaching. If we are in a position to do so, we should promote stronger connections and collaborations between schools, school-children and universities, because this is likely to help produce a healthier, safer society.
14. Just a generation ago, the mark of a civilized person was an appreciation of Shakespeare, Milton, Goethe, Thucydides, Rembrandt and Beethoven. But the pursuit of science has become so intense and demanding that today’s scientists are more likely to neglect our cultural inheritance. We may wish to reflect that by broadening our own interests; thus we may help non-scientists to see science as part of our culture. Shakespeare, Thucydides, Goethe or even Milton may not be directly relevant to our scientific research, but the cultural values such authors represent are universal and deeply important. The words of the roman poet Terence are of particular relevance: Homo sum: humani nil a me alienum puto – ‘I am a man: nothing human is foreign to me.’
(reproduced with Robert Winston’s permission)
I really like these – having worked at the interface between science and the rest of society (or at least, parts of it) for some years now, they make a lot of sense to me. But I imagine they are not to everyone’s taste.
So what do you think – are they useful, do they need work, or do you think they on the wrong track? There’s a big blank comment box below, just waiting for your thoughts!
This content is published under the Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license.
Related posts:
- New report on Science and Trust emphasizes acknowledging risk and uncertainty
- Poll: Does trust in science need restoring?
- Engaging the public on science? Surely you’re joking!
- Scientist listen to the public? Surely you’re joking Mr. Mooney!
- Hooked on science – ten things that inspired me to become a scientist
{ 9 comments… read them below or add one }
We could substitute many expert professions, such as mine – architecture – and it would be fitting. thanks for sharing this information, I will get the book.
I agree Cindy – in fact, it makes me wonder whether some professions do have professional guidelines along these lines…
Thanks for posting this, Andrew. I very much like these principles, I agree with all of it and, as you say, it’s expressed in a very clear and jargon free way.
Among the things that aren’t said often enough, the comments in points 3 and 9 about the need to avoid over-hyping one’s own work and doing down competitors are important. Point 7 – about avoiding arrogance – sounds utopian to me! I think the important point here isn’t so much that scientists shouldn’t be arrogant about their own work and achievements, and by extension about the virtues of science as a wider body of knowledge, but that they shouldn’t be dismissive about other areas of human endeavour, whether that’s other academic disciplines, or for that matter the deep skills and knowledge that many people need to have to do what they do, whether that’s building houses, keeping livestock, or understanding value added tax. This of course is the attitude that needs to inform the two-way engagement in point 2 (and maybe it’s better to put it this way than by seeking the more traditional sounding reverence for high culture of point 14). One could also expand point 6 – I think there would be less unreflective science hubris around if more scientists read more widely about the history of science and technology, and had some acquaintance with the fascinating debates about their philosophical underpinnings
Point 11 is going to be the trickiest to get consensus for because what one thinks about it depends so much on one’s political point of view. Within the current (somewhat tattered) free market based western consensus there is only one way for technology to be applied for public good, and that’s through the market, so it’s impossible to avoid at least some scientists engaging with private industry. It’s obvious then that conflicts of interest are likely to arise. Of course people should be aware of these and try and work round them, but ultimately these are deep-seated structural problems that can’t really be solved by individual scientists. They need collective action – it’s about politics.
Thank for this Richard.
I wonder whether point 7 would be better framed in terms of humility – a willingness to question one’s own assertions and to listen openly to others. This would reflect some of the thinking of people like Sheila Jasanoff, and would avoid emotive and potentially unhelpful accusations of “arrogance.”
On point 14, although I fully agree with the principles here, I wonder whether it would resonate more with the current generation (or generations…) if it was framed in a more culturally relevant way. I appreciate Rembrandt and Beethoven as much as the next person, but there have been many other important cultural influences over the decades and centuries – and I really dislike cultural snobbery, which is a potential issues when the bastions of the cultural elite are wheeled out.
And I agree with you on point 11 that commercial interests is a tricky issue, and one that probably needs further thinking through. As Robert has framed it, the point presents a useful warning to be careful when mixing science with business. But commercial interests are an important fact of life in science, and I suspect more clarity is needed on how best to ensure these relationships are beneficial rather than being destructive.
Associated with this, any potential funding source of science raises issues of bias and vested interest – whether industry, government or other groups. This is almost – but not quite – touched on in point 10. It might be useful to think more broadly in terms of how sponsorship and funding impacts science, and how adverse impacts might be avoided (how many scientists moderate what they do and say when they feel their actions might jeopardize their chances of successfully bidding for grants for instance?).
And of course cultural literacy will vary from culture/country to culture/country too – while we may pride ourselves on being able to quote Shakespeare, hum a little Beethoven and describe important works by Rembrandt, we’re ignoring cultural icons from Asia, Africa, and aboriginal peoples entirely. And of course there’s also the huge disconnect between pop culture and highbrow culture, which is one of the reasons I occasionally force myself to read things like Judith Krantz’s Princess Daisy (the first English-language book to outsell the Bible, apparently). My reasons for doing so aren’t particularly noble – I just firmly believe it’s wrong to sneer from a position of intuitive ignorance.
Thanks Andrew, I have been looking at these too and have had a few chats with folks over here about how we can use them for a practical discourse on science and society, and also consider a Business Manifesto, Government Manifesto and even Society’s Manifesto, maybe even a Media Manifesto (ok that is perhaps too ‘aspirational’!! There is some interest in this, so will keep you posted. Prof Winston when I mentioned this idea to him was keen as he hadn’t really any plans for this other than to lob it into the mix and see what happened.
This is in a way the next step from Sir David King’s Ethical Code for Scientists.
* Act with skill and care, keep skills up to date
* Prevent corrupt practice and declare conflicts of interest
* Respect and acknowledge the work of other scientists
* Ensure that research is justified and lawful
* Minimise impacts on people, animals and the environment
* Discuss issues science raises for society
* Do not mislead; present evidence honestly
What I like about a ‘manifesto’ as opposed to the Ethical Code, Principles For.. route is that it has a positiveness and inspirational quality that this Code approach somehow lacks. They are more about, what I called when working with business, the ‘business is bad and something must be done’ mentality. Which is actually pretty unmotivating for those being cajoled to make the change and pretty much doesn’t work.
I also think that businesses are ready to have that discussion, our first Business/Ethics/Emerging Tech working group meets on Thursday and these sort of issues are what we will focus our energies on for the next few months (if we can get the cash that is! I am hoping to pull together a business manifesto of some sort to add to the debate and also bring the two together.
What we need is an energetic, proactive and more inspiring discourse among all actors, but particularly science and business, it could be quite exciting!
Hilary, it seems to me that the starting point for the Dave King code is that it is about the actions of an individual – what one should do and not do to be a responsible scientist. What the manifesto is moving towards is much more recognition that science is a social enterprise. In part this means much more explicit recognition that the values of the larger community are shaped by the way individual scientists operate (scientists, for example, are notorious for complaining about how terrible peer review is, but have to be reminded that it is they who are the peer reviewers). The downside is that one has to acknowledge that there are areas in which individual scientists can feel that they lack power and agency. Under point 11, for example, scientists may well be aware of the dangers of an over-eager pursuit of commercial interests, but if that’s what their employers, universities or government are urging them to do they may not be in a position to resist. That’s why there’s a need, not just for scientists to think about their own actions, but for a wider discussion about the relationship between science and society. This is necessarily a political discussion.
Yes, I see what you are saying Richard, you are quite right. In a way, I felt that your point was one of the things that the UK’s Science and Trust working group was considering, and may consider in more depth as part of its next steps. But for me they, and the Science for All group didn’t actually nail it in the strategic and political sense that you are suggesting. But I may be being uncharitable. I know there is some deep thinking going on about this, which I am sure you are involved in.
Interesting to see what happens given all the turmoil and dire shortage of cash!
Well, since it’s the LibDems stated position to abolish the Science and Society program, maybe the working groups won’t get to take this stuff much further.