Science and Technology Policy and Innovation I Benchmarking the Promotion of Research and Technology...

Science and Technology Policy and Innovation I

Benchmarking the Promotion of

Research and Technology

Development (RTD) Culture

and Public Understanding of Science

(PUS)

Set up in September 2001

Release in July 2002

Presented by:João Silva

Paulo Anastácio

Ricardo Manso

Summary

Report demonstrates the wide range of activities undertaken to promote RTD culture and public understanding of science;

Report verifies the existence of two trends in RTD culture policies:

– Pedagogical approach;

– Establishing a dialog between citizens and other actors;

Report concludes about the need to promote further analysis, namely through quantitative methods;

RTD Culture and PUS

Surveys regularly painted a picture of an

“ignorant public”, showing a large deficit of

knowledge about S&T (Deficit Model);

RTD Culture and PUS

Citizens want to be involved in:

– Deciding how new technologies are developed;

– Judging if scientific discoveries are useful and

appropriate;

– Determining how scientific discoveries are

being used;

Expert Group Benchmarking

Determine the state of RTD culture and PUS;

Survey existing activities and measures

undertaken to promote RTD culture and PUS;

Recommend measures for improvement;

Expert Group Benchmarking

Solid knowledge of previous work;

Professional experience in:

– Science popularisation;

– Teaching;

– Management of institutions;

– Management of programmes;

No prior experience in benchmarking;

Knowledge and interest levels in S&T (Eurobarometer 55.2): 2001

(57,8%) (60%) (11,3%) (71,1%)

Knowledge and interest levels in S&T: 1992 vs 2001

Findings: Actors

Governments and Agencies;

Scientific Community;

Education;

Museums and Science Centres;

Media;

Industry and Private Sector.

Findings: Government and Agencies

Approximately only 50% of member states

have clear policies on the promotion of RTD

culture and PUS;

Many governments do not have an idea of

what they are supporting, and also why, how,

and how much;


Women are more concerned than men about S&T,

but little is currently being done specifically to

promote RTD culture and PUS among them;

Internet does not obviate the need for traditional

media and other additional activities in the

promotion of RTD culture and PUS;


The “Deficit Model” of simply giving

information to a public presumed to be

ignorant has been shown to be inadequate;

High variability in the decisions, actions, and

commitments of governments is very common;


“One size fits all” approaches to promoting RTD

culture and PUS are usually not very effective;

Experiences made in one country will not

translate simply into other countries, given the

social, cultural and historical differences;

Findings: Scientific Community

Community is mainly focused in:

– Providing teaching aid materials, information

for educational purposes;

– Organising conferences and debates for the

general public and particularly students;

– organisation of events, namely “science

weeks” and S&T Festivals;


Training offered to most scientists does not equip

them to get involved in public dialogue;

Scientists are acquainted with the public’s needs;

Interaction with scientists is increasingly

demanded by society;


Improving the public visibility of scientists should

help attract more young Europeans to RTD careers;

Little recognition of the effort that scientists

invest in the promotion of RTD culture and PUS;

Findings: Education Systems

Education is a key contribution to the

development of PUS;

Image of S&T as perceived in school is the most

dominant factor affecting the predisposition

towards the two areas in adult life;


Familiarisation of students from the early

stages in socially oriented areas, such as

Environmental studies, will improve

citizenship and societal welfare;

Out-of-school learning is attractive to

students and effective;


Integration of ICT into the teaching of

science-related subjects can change the

pedagogical climate;

Findings: Museums and Science Centres

Science centres and Museums are successful

tools for science communication and

learning;

Experiences in science centres play a key

part in youngsters’ decision to follow a

scientific career;


Small and middle-sized institutions are

particularly valuable:

– Respond to a real local demand;

– Address a young interested public;

Science centres have significantly promoted the

dialogue between the different actors and the

public;

Findings: Media

Television is the main source of science

information for the lay public;

National information agencies act as a

reference for all types of news items and

exert a great influence on the media

agendas;

Findings: Media

Findings: Media

University journalism degrees lack science

communication courses;

Science degrees pay little or no attention to

the acquisition of communication skills;

Findings: Media

Findings: Industry and Private sector

Industries offer information in an attempt to

increase knowledge on areas connected to

their activities;

Some industries support pedagogical

experiences or provide educational material in

order to promote the image of their activities;


Some industries rely upon the efforts of the

academic community in communicating about

their work;

Some associations of very large industrial

companies, support an approach to science

society relationships based on the

development of dialogue through forums;


Personal contacts with people directly involved

in industrial research are efficient in the

transfer of information and the development of

informed opinions;

The public is interested in knowing how local

factories and industries work;

Students are interested in the industry,

because it can bring exciting aspects to school

projects;


Industry is more active in promoting RTD

culture when technological changes are

occurring and when a market is to be opened

by creating a taste for the use of new

machines or products;

Conclusions

First exercise ever to benchmark the promotion

of RTD culture and PUS across the EU;

The public image of S&T in Europe is constantly

changing;

The direct involvement of individual scientists

and engineers is very important;

Government leadership in this area is also

crucial;

Conclusions

Quantitative data is fundamental in future

benchmarks;

Scientific information distributed and the

nature of its contribution to the democratic

debate should be evaluated;

Precise information regarding the amount of

money spent by each of the actors should be

sought in future benchmarks;

Conclusions

Considerable difficulty in evaluating the different

ways of formally and informally teach S&T;

Need for more social science research on problems

linked to the diffusion of RTD culture;

All kinds of science and technology museums in

Europe including open-air ones should be

surveyed;

Conclusions

The practice of “round tables” on television

which allow different viewpoints to be

expressed on S&T should be encouraged;

In future surveys, local level entities and

activities should be analysed;

Non-governmental organisations should also

be considered as actors;

Cheers!

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

Science and Technology Policy and Innovation I Benchmarking the Promotion of Research and Technology...

Documents

Transcript of Science and Technology Policy and Innovation I Benchmarking the Promotion of Research and Technology...