issued by the Association of Scientific Workers, stressed the need to improve the public understanding of science by using conventional

educational tools, the new opportunities offered by media like television, and the necessity that scientists, too, should disseminate scientific knowledge. The policy statement drawn up by the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) in 1951 the so-called Arden House Statement included among the associations goals that of increasing the public understanding and appreciation of the importance and promise of the methods of science in human progress [..] in our modern society it is absolutely essential that science the results of science, the spirit of science be better understood by government officials, by businessmen, and indeed by all the people. (Weaver 1951, cit. in Lewenstein 1992 : 52) The joint schemes undertaken with the media for this purpose burgeoned to such an extent that in the early 1960s, the AAAS considered making dedicated offices in Hollywood and New York available to television producers (Lewenstein 1992). In 1958, six months after the launch of the Sputnik an event which greatly encouraged investments in research and the promotion of scientific culture so that the USA could keep pace with its Soviet rival the National Science Foundation (NSF) introduced a Public Understanding of Science programme costing one and a half million dollars. Finally, the National Science Writers Association (NSWA) obtained funding from the Rockefeller Foundation to conduct a series of surveys on newspaper readers assessing whether they thought greater space should be devoted to scientific news. In 1957, a survey of the American public, again carried out by the NSWA, found attitudes that were decidedly in favour of science but modest levels of understanding; a result which was used to justify greater investments in science education programmes. It was for the purpose of appraising the impact of these programmes that, in the 1970s, the NSF included scientific literacy among its science indicators. However, it was not until the 1980s that an outright movement for the public understanding of science came into being. In Europe, a significant landmark was the report on The Public Understanding of Science published by the Royal Society in 1985 (Gregory and Miller 1998 ; Bucchi 2003a ). According to this report, better public understanding of science can be a major element in promoting national prosperity, in raising the quality of public and private decision making and in enriching the life of the individual. (Royal Society 1985, cit. in Irwin 1995 :14). The report called for greater commitment in this regard by public and private institutions, specifying the benefits for the individual and society. As to the individual, people better informed about scientific subjects are able to make more informed choices in their daily lives (e.g., as regards health), besides being more fully able to appreciate the results of scientific research. As to society, if citizens are better

informed about science and technology they will work more efficiently. By becoming less hostile and more amenable to research and innovation, they may facilitate political decisions and economic development and thus contribute more fully to the democratic process. The report concluded that Scientists must learn to communicate to the public and consider it their duty to do so. (cit. in Gregory and Miller 1998:6). The document led to the creation by the Royal Society, jointly with the 4 1 The Technocratic Response: All Power to the Experts Royal Institution and the British Association for the Advancement of Science, of a Committee for the Public Understanding of Science (COPUS) responsible, among other things, for allocating funds to schemes communicating science to the public. This interest in the relationship between science and public opinion led to a largescale study on the public in Great Britain which achieved high visibility among scientists and policymakers (Durant et al. 1989 ). The survey found significant interest among the British public in science, an interest indeed greater than in sport and politics. However, a decidedly small proportion of respondents considered themselves sufficiently well-informed about science, and an even smaller, not to say negligible, number exhibited a minimally adequate level of factual knowledge about science. On numerous occasions, the results of these surveys have been used to argue that too little attention is paid to scientific topics and that the level of scientific understanding is poor. One of surveys most frequently cited a comparative study between the USA and Great Britain concluded, for example, that more than 90% of the American and English populations could be considered scientifically illiterate (Durant et al. 1991 ). In light of the results these studies, various public and private institutions have launched initiatives and programmes to promote greater awareness and better understanding of science among the non-specialist public. These schemes range among the open days now organized by the majority of research laboratories and institutes, Festivals of Science, the initiatives mounted by foundations and companies expressly to combat scientific illiteracy, and training courses for science journalists.4 At the European level, besides the European Science Weeks instituted in 1993, mention should be made of the specific funding available under the European Commissions Fifth Framework Programme (19982002) to raise the public awareness of science. Since the Sixth Framework Programme, the promotion of dialogue between science and society has been included among the European Commissions priority objectives for research. Various national and international initiatives have also been undertaken to encourage scientists to communicate with the public, and to provide them with the skills that they require to do so. Documents such as the Wolfendale Committees report to the British Office of Science and British Technology (1995) have recommended that

all publicly financed researchers should devote part of their time to illustrating their results to the public. For some years, in countries like Sweden, institutional obligations of the staff of public universities have included, besides teaching and research, the so called third mission: communication and engagement with the general public. According to the recent Recommendation by the Committee on the European Charter for Researchers and Code of Conduct for the Recruitment of Researchers: 4 For an international survey of these initiatives, see OECD ( 1997 ) and European Commission ( 2002 ). 1.2 The Flimsy Pillars of the Technocratic View 5 Researchers should ensure that their research activities are made known to society at large in such a way that they can be understood by non-specialists, thereby improving the publics understanding of science.5 1.2 The Flimsy Pillars of the Technocratic View Both the components of the technocratic response, strengthening the scientific role of expertise and informing the public better so that it is more receptive to the instances of science, have significant weaknesses. I shall begin by examining the major shortcomings in the missionary part of this response. I shall then argue that it is not just because of these shortcomings that the technocratic option does not seem feasible as a solution to the deadlocks which frequently arise in technoscience. Essentially, the technocrats argue that the publics open scepticism concerning questions such as the introduction of transgenic foods is due to misinformation. As political scientist Renato Mannheimer has claimed, the almost general opposition to GM foods among Italian citizens recorded by the Ispo/AC Nielsen survey, as well as by Eurobarometer surveys and numerous other studies, is due to media popularization and the image which the mass media have conveyed, rightly or wrongly, of GM foods. This has persuaded the majority of Italians to be opposed to them (Mannheimer 2003 ). If this is how matters stand, the remedy appears simple: it will be sufficient to communicate the results of scientific research more and better. Thus, the public will be better informed and will consequently embrace the positions of the scientific community. In turn, a more favourable climate of public opinion will strengthen the role of scientific research and this, via its technological outcomes, will produce economic growth and thus benefit society as a whole. Hence, the patient (public opinion, the media) is given often with the support of large public funding huge injections of visits to museums and science centres, science festivals, open days at research laboratories and institutes, training courses for science journalists, television programmes, and quiz shows for prizes (!).6 Yet it has never been proved that the more the science is communicated, the

more the level of public awareness increases, and even less so that attitudes towards specific scientific and technological issues grow more positive as a consequence. In general, moreover, although the problem of the effects of communication has engaged the attention of mass media researchers for more than half a century, the direct influence of the information media on attitudes (not to mention behaviours) is still largely to be proven.7 5 http://www.europa.eu.int/eracareers/pdf/C( 2005)576%20IT.pdf 6 A list of the projects financed under the Fifth Framework by the European Commission can be consulted at ftp://ftp.cordis.lu/pub/improving/docs/rpa_projects_fp5.pdf 7 See , for example, DeFleur and Ball-Rokeach ( 1989 ); on the inadequacy of a transfer model with specific regard to the communication of science, see Bucchi (2004a). 6 1 The Technocratic Response: All