A dance inspired by epigenetics, the potential impact of new GCSE science curricula, a re-enactment of an 18th-century arm amputation, new online tools for public involvement in public policy discussions: the range of activities carried out under the umbrella of public engagement can seem bewilderingly large.

All these topics and events – and much more – featured in the Wellcome Trust's Engaging Science conference, which brought together a stimulating mix of people interested in the interactions between science and the rest of society. Many had been funded by the Wellcome Trust, others were keen to find out more about the nature of this relatively new area, and some from outside the UK brought an international perspective.

The subtitle of the conference, 'Is public engagement engaging the public?', hinted at a key issue exercising the minds of public engagement professionals – whether activities are successfully engaging all sectors of society – but in practice discussion and debate ranged more broadly. Indeed, one of the most notable features of the conference was the way people from a multitude of disciplines had the chance to meet and share experiences.

New beginnings

'Public engagement with science' is a relatively new area – or at least a relatively new label. It is the young offspring of 'public understanding of science', the two differing fundamentally in the views of the relationship between science and 'the public'.

In its early days, public understanding of science was driven by the view that the public were lamentably ignorant about science. Most influential was the Bodmer report of 1985, which spawned a wave of public understanding of science initiatives from a range of public bodies. The fear was that an increasingly technological society would be ill-served by a populace ignorant of its fundamental scientific underpinnings. Moreover, it was felt that if the public were 'scientifically literate', attitudes to science would become more positive.

Over time, it became clear that these lines of reasoning were flawed. For example, exposure to science did not necessarily lead inexorably to more favourable attitudes. It was also debatable how useful arcane scientific knowledge was in most day-to-day life: everyone could appreciate the upside and downsides of video recorders without having any idea how they worked (or how to program them).

More fundamentally, many questioned the whole nature of the relationship. The notion of the knowledgeable scientist-expert lecturing the ignorant proletariat felt out of kilter with social trends towards greater individual autonomy and influence. Over time, calls came for the communication to be more two-way – the public had plenty of useful things to communicate to the experts, for example on how they thought science should serve society or on ethically controversial practices.

Enter engagement

So public understanding has gradually morphed into public engagement. But this remains an amorphous entity: it is doubtful that public engagement has any widely agreed coherence. It is a term that means different things to different people, and there is not even consensus on its full scope. For some, it refers just to the 'dialogue', where the public have a chance to express their views and feed into decision making; for others, it covers the full panoply of activities in which both scientifically trained or active individuals interact in some way with people or groups without a scientific background.

The other point clear in the presentations at the conference, and in the accompanying discussions, is that people do public engagement for different reasons. Scientists may want to share the excitement of their discoveries; educationalists strive to improve the schooling of young people; artists may see science as a rich source of ideas and thinking.

The question might be asked, then: is there any kind of greater coherence behind this dazzling constellation of activities? Websites providing insight and resources on issues in biomedical ethics, a play and associated discussion tackling the rights and wrongs of animal experimentation, continuing development opportunities for teachers, fabulous mechanical figures illustrating science in action – each may individually have great merit, but is there any intellectual framework that links them all together?

Although diverse – and that in itself is part of the fascination of public engagement – it is possible to see how such activities form part of a bigger picture. Any model has to recognise, however, that the immediate objectives of activities vary – different projects are attempting to achieve different things. What the bigger picture illustrates, though, is that the activities can work in a mutually beneficial way.

The interplay between science, people as individuals and science more broadly is, of course, more complex than this simple view suggests. But it can help to make the point that there is no one simple answer to public engagement, no magic wand that will render all other approaches obsolete.

Public understanding of science may have neglected to consider the benefits of scientists listening to people. In rejecting the knowledge deficit model so forcefully, however, the narrow view of public engagement ignores the clear public appetite for information, as well as the empowering character of an understanding of the nature of science, and the way it can aid people in their personal decision making. Individuals can benefit significantly from an awareness of emerging medical opportunities, risk and safety, and the role of the media in reporting medical science.

So does that mean there is no overarching vision that everyone can sign up to? Almost everyone who is involved in this area shares a view that science is a hugely important human activity, practically and intellectually. And everyone would see the benefits of having that activity firmly embedded in society, in relationships based on mutual respect, trust and understanding.

Engaging Science

A major new book on public engagement with science is being published by the Wellcome Trust in July 2006.

'Engaging Science: Thoughts, deeds, analysis and action' features essays from leading researchers, practitioners and commentators. It examines what we have learned about the relationships between these groups over the past decade and what the implications are for future practice.

Topics include public attitudes to science, the role of the media in public engagement, the scientists' perspective, implications for education, linking the public to policy making, and the role of campaigning groups.

'Engaging Science' also includes summaries of key Wellcome Trust-funded projects and initiatives supported over the past decade.

See also

• Download conference report [PDF 192KB]
• Update: Engaging Science conference (News, 6 April 2006)