PART 6

The Interaction of Science and Its Publics

This section looks at how science interacts with society, concentrating on the most visible part of sciencethe scientists. Scientists today must be politically savvy, "civic" scientists of proven social responsibility, good communicators who can empower citizens to participate in formulating science policy, and public relations experts who can reach out to people in other fields so they can know what scientists do. That is a tall order. Fortunately, we also hear that the support for science and technology is there in our society, despite a dwindling interest in science itself. We need to only capitalize on this support.

Gregory E. van der Vink's title suggests that our leaders (and citizenry) are scientifically illiterate, and our scientists are politically clueless. He asks why our leaders are not scientists, or at least more versed in science (and why our scientists aren't leaders). For the future, we will also need scientists with a more broad understanding of science, as well as basic literacy in other fields, so they can help citizens appreciate the role of science in our society. No one else can do this for us. "In the end, our greatest threat may not be the scientific illiteracy of the public, but the political illiteracy of scientists."

Neal Lane picks up on this idea and introduces a new, additional role for scientiststhat of being "civic" scientists. In this role scientists and engineers reach out to their fellow citizens to engage in active dialogue, listening as well as speaking. Understanding where knowledge meets needs and "then acting on behalf of society will present our most challenging task." As Einstein cautioned us, "Concern for man himself and his fate must always form the chief interest of all technical endeavors." Our agenda for science and technology in the 21st century must include concern for humanity and its fate, as well as an appreciation that scientists cannot solve the world's problems alone.

Again, as in the last section, we hear that we are at the dawn of "daunting challenges and extraordinary opportunities." We have it in our hands to "not only advance the frontiers of science but also address the great unsolved problems of humanity." Lane repeats a theme heard before when he says that this means placing a high priority on educating our youth. We must be focused on the future, as we have heard before, so future generations will be inspired to continue our good work.

Franklin D. Raines writes from his long-term and diverse experience in universities. He gives us the insiders' view of what universities have to deal with. Much of it is the day-to-day running of a large economic enterprise. He addresses three areas that he believes are the core functions of research universities: teaching, the creation of knowledge, and the integration of knowledge in its relationship to society. He also raises several questions. How will the requirement to balance the budget affect spending on research at universities? How large a scientific enterprise does the Nation need? How do we measure the success of our Nation's research programs, in light of the Government Performance and Results Act? To what extent does the federal government have an obligation to support research at universities? He also has questions about the issues of infrastructure and demographics related to technological change.

Alan H. McGowan speaks of a dwindling interest in science as well as popular support for science and technology. He is concerned that the citizenry does not know enough about science. And some of the blame must lie at the feet of those who work for the public understanding of science. One thing they need to do is convince other scientists that this is their job, too. Those who care about science understanding and education "must reach out for help to many peopleto working scientists everywhere, to writers, artists, musicians, poets, everyone who can help carry the message. It is too important to be left to us alone."

Marcel C. LaFollette asserts that public support for funding science depends on how the public views science, which is often shaped by the media. He reviews the history of the public image of scientists from romantic (if eccentric) heroes of the late-night laboratory, to Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, to today's more complex popular image"bright people with human failings and a gift for clever analysis."

Scientists have set a high bar for their image because of the successes of the past. Contained within Bush's report was the idea that scientific research should be publicly supported because scientists themselves are always reliable, credible, and trustworthy. But the public is now able to learn about instances that do not reflect well on science. LaFollette suggests a strategy. The scientific community needs to provide a context for the public's image of scientists to counteract the media's distorted or exaggerated images. Personal experiences are powerful influences. "How often is science 'experienced' by the citizens whose beliefs and actions have immediate consequences for society and for their own well-being?" If we don't pay attention to the public image of science, we risk having a less supportive constituency, with consequent implications for science's political future.