Paper Science and the Public

Introduction
One probe in the ever-expanding body of literature concerning the relation
between science and the public yields a wide and wild variety of problems,
concepts and theory. To scratch the surface, a recurring issue is the notion
of a gap between science and the public. I use scare quotes here
because the use of these concepts, unsurprisingly, varies in the literature.

For example, Bernadette Bensaude-Vincent argues in A genealogy of

the increasing gap between science and the public that our modern notion
of a gap is a natural feature of the progress of science. Scientists in our
current century are highly specialized professionals, producing knowledge
in complex discipline, for instance physics, thereby necessarily working at
a distance from the general public. 1 Although this gap may seem archaic,
it depends on a particular conjunction of cultural circumstances, which
makes the term an useful tool for description. In ancient Greece for
example, doxa (opinion) was contrasted with epistm (knowledge) by
philosophers as Socrates and Plato to define science and maintain their
social status as scientists. The philosopher was obsessed with the pursuit
of real knowledge; the public was content with appearances of that what
was sensible.2 In the Enlightened period, this distinction was less clear
because the adage sapere aude (dare to think!), encouraged every
individual to think for himself, and to free oneself from other authorities as
church and state. 3 By the nineteenth century, a demarcation between
scientists and the public emerged again. This was due to the development
of popular science, created as an alternative to pure science. It
categorized the public as mere science consumers. 4 To conclude, with
the developments of relativity theory and quantum theory in the twentieth
century, the distinction between opinion and knowledge was more
relevant than ever, thereby placing the public at a large distance from
professional science again.5

1 Bensaude vincent article 100

2 Bensaude vincent p 101

3 Idem p 102.

4 Idem p 105

5 Bensaude vincent 107

 A genealogy as discussed above is illustrative for the goal of this article,
so I will proceed outlining the aim of my paper in relation to what has
already been said.

Aim
A genealogy aims to provide conceptual tools to approach the notions of
science and the public more balanced.6 One should indeed not try to
understand the notion of the public solely through one of its cultural
characteristics, as mentioned above, but instead, illuminate all of its
dimensions. That is what I will try to do. I will try to connect the concepts
in A genealogy, but also with those present in other literature, with
empirical data provided by the open-access study The image of science in
the Netherlands (Het beeld van de wetenschap in Nederland). This study
was conducted by the Dutch Institute for Cultural and Social Policy
(Sociaal-cultureel Planbureau, SCP) in 2000. It comprises a large survey in
which 1777 respondents have been interviewed about their opinions
regarding the communication of scientific results, quality of science, their
interest in science, and its technological developments. 7 What is of special
interest for the purpose of this paper is that the total number of
respondents comprises a small number (26) of representatives of different
parties in the Dutch parliament (Tweede Kamer), and a small number of
science journalists explain what sort of journalists?(59). For present
purposes, it is important to remember that the notion of a public
comprises more than the genuine lay public. In addition, in the literature
interesting remarks are being made about science and its interaction with
science communicators and politicians, for example in the work of Naomi
Oreskes and Erik M. Conway.8 It is fortunate that this study allows us to say
something about these groups as well. The image of science is the most
recent study of this type as far as I know and is regarded as a
representative sample of Dutch society.9 It explicitly aims to come to know
what science in the public eye is, but does not involve itself into
theoretical explanation of it.10 Its purpose is mainly descriptive, and for the
questions asked and the results presented, almost no concepts are used
6 Idem p 102

7 SCP rapport WINL p7,8

8 Merchants of doubt book

9 P8 image of science in Holland spc rapport

10 Idem p 12
and no reference is made to literature affiliated with the subject of science
and the public. This makes it particularly suitable for a conceptual
analysis, so this paper will investigate whether concepts in, for example A
genealogy, were relevant in Dutch society, about fifteen years ago. Since
this procedure is like running the machine backwards, that is, projecting
theory on already established results, survey questions will not always
neatly fit the concepts available in the literature, which is an obvious
limitation. However, thorough descriptions of the concepts, questions and
results used should reduce this issue to a minimum. I will do the following
in the remainder of this article. I will start with a brief general
interpretation of The image of science in the face of the science and the
public literature. After that, I will outline what concepts will be used and
how they connect to the survey, and proceed by interpreting the surveys
results with them. I will end with a brief conclusion and discussion.
But first, why would all this be relevant? As is already said, an
extensive body of literature exists already concerning the relation between
science and the public. Since science is often held high as a powerful
instrument for persuasion, it is important to know what its reception and
place in so to say popular culture is, and the problem for, Roger Cooter
and Stephen Pumfrey, to name a few, is that this is issue is fairly
undocumented. 11 Even the effects of the most glaring science
communication media, such as the popular press, television, and
museums are largely unknown. The survey used in this paper will help us
to understand the effects of some of these media and other aspects that
help to grasp the place of science in the public. To come to the point, a
conceptual analysis of empirical data seems welcome to provide a status
quo for science in society. Also, some studies describing of the image of
science in Dutch society do exist, but as said, most are just descriptions or
too old to say something about this status quo. More general motivations
why the place of science should be understood are briefly but certainly not
exhaustively mentioned in The image of science itself: science has a
profound impact on a citizens daily lives, whether he or she likes this or
not: for instance, some technological innovations call for ethical
reflections. In addition, these innovations are most of the time funded by
the tax payer, so political support is important for politicians, but in a
democracy also for its citizens, who vote for a particular ideological view
on this matter. The SCP aims at a more truthful public understanding of
science because this is essential for democracy. 12 This will be discussed
further in the next section.

11 Cooter pumfrey article p237

12 Scp rapport p5
A general view
The image of science provides, to begin with, an overview of the at that
time current state of science communication in the Netherlands. The
general motivations mentioned in the last section have led to something
called science and technology communication, which has become an
independent field of academic study. This field has its roots in the United
States, and publishes its own journals (e.g. Science Communication and
Public understanding of Science and Technology). The Netherlands
followed this movement, for example with regard to journals concerning
the subject, a Dutch equivalent exists now (e.g. Tijdschrift voor
Wetenschap, Technologie en Samenleving). According to The image of
science, this movement is still expanding and highly systematic and
independent. 13 It is interesting to see how this Dutch practice in some
respects resembles what Cooter and Pumfrey criticized as the public
understanding of science [PUS]: the putative new discipline of PUS seeks
to fill the gap between professional and public understandings of science.
14
The PUS relies nevertheless heavily on outmoded conceptions of the
public as passive consumers of advanced products. 15 It is just another
branch of scientific analysis, assuming that scientific truths are
autonomous and a-socially produced, and therefore, it becomes in due
course part of the problem itself. 16The image of science is part of this
Dutch practice. It hints about consumers when it mentions the drive to
bring science and the public together, and the public simply has to deal
with the results of scientific research. Further, since science delivers
technological innovations and products, it influences the citizen in its role
as consumer, for example, ethically.17 Of course, also other motivations are
mentioned, as described in the foregoing paragraph, but these stand out. I
think it is only more emblematic that The image of science reports of
about 1500 institutions which concern themselves with science
communication in the Netherlands. 18 Perhaps the SCP cannot be qualified
as a putative new discipline of the PUS as Cooter and Pumfrey put it, since

13 Scp rapport p5

14 Cooter pumfrye p238

15 Idem ^

16 Cooter pumfrey p241

17 SCP rapport p5.

it is a scientific research institution under the authority of the Dutch
administration.19 Still, it takes a view in The image of science that that is
similar to the view of the Royal Society in its Public Understanding of
Science report, which argues that science and technology influences the
public on a daily basis, which in turn needs to understand the basics of it
for a proper use of the tools and services it provides. 20 So, I think that this
study reveals something of a science-consumers science-producers in the
PUS sense.
To move to a larger picture, in the introduction of The image of
science understanding of science is deemed essential for the functioning
of democracy. In the Netherlands, academic activity is increasing: the
number of publications and dissertations is becoming larger, and
universities are more involved with economic activities than in 1988.
Therefore, public understanding and a sense of control of it is necessary. 21
Again, the message of the Royal Society's Public Understanding of Science
resonates here: citizens just need science to make important political
decision with regard to societal issues. 22 However, Collins remarks that
more familiarity with the findings of science does not simply result in
easier decision-making in political problems. Since scientific experts do
only in very few cases agree about controversial subjects, emphasizing
scientific knowledge as a basis for decisions is overly simplistic. It is rather
important that an individual sees something of the discussions and
uncertainties in the daily scientific process itself. 23 Indeed, in The image of
science, nowhere is explained what a proper understanding of science
entails, yet, it keeps arguing for a better understanding of science and its
results to help citizens separate the wheat from the chaff in a variety of
(political) choices.24 The broader picture drawn in my opinion is that
science and the public are independent spheres. Science produces

18 scp 5

19 http://www.scp.nl/Organisatie/Wat_is_het_SCP/Voor_wie_werkt_het_SCP

20 Collins article p 690

21 Scp p4

22 Collins 690

23 Collins 691, 629

24 Scp 3, 5
unambiguous knowledge and delivers technology, in turn, citizens use
these to make political decisions.

Concepts, the survey and results

The first thing to be analysed is the respondents idea of science in
general. As conceptual tool, Bensaude-Vincents conception of the gap
between science and the public in the twentieth century will be used. She
notes that a lot of initiatives existed for the dispersion for example through
magazines, radio programs and exhibitions, after World War I. Also,
science communication became a public institution, and this involved the
creation of professional science-journalists as well.25 However positive this
might seem for the image and knowledge of science of the public, the
vehicles mentioned for the dispersion of science were regarded by many
academicians as vulgar.26 Bensaude-Vincent mentions the French
philosopher Gaston Bachelard as exemplifying the consequences of this
view: the public was more and more regarded as an ignorant mass,
unable to access to truth and valid statements, merely possessing
opinion. 27 This new credo, as she calls it, can be explained by taking
Bachelards background into account. He was a physicist, and his figure
was illustrative for the new developments in relativity theory and quantum
mechanics. These subjects in a new paradigm in physics resulted in a
break with the common-sense conception of the world. Scientists and
ordinary people lived in separate worlds. Another important feature was
that these new theories needed to become the model for all scientific
thought. 28 Bensaude-Vincent sees the tendency to reduce science to the
physicists models as characterizing the gap between science and the
public in the twentieth century.29 The research on nuclear physics in the
Cold War also stimulated the tendency to identify science with physics,
since policy constraining research was at that time beyond democratic
control and this influenced the idea of science and public being separate
worlds heavily.30

25 Bensaude vincent article p 105

26 106

27 Bovenstaande p106

28 Idem 107

29 Bens. Vinc 108

30 Bens p 109
 The question is now how the aforementioned ideas of Bensaude-
Vincent can be connected to the survey and whether its results fits her
views. To get an impression of the individuals general view of science, the
following survey question is used (I translated the questions as nigh as
possible): If you notice the words science or scientific somewhere (book,
paper, journal, radio, television), what do these indications mean for you?
(More than one answer possible.)31 When looked at the results (I have
omitted for present purposes irrelevant other percentages), 36% of the
total lay respondents does not provide a survey-relevant association. This
means that a respondent is just saying that he or she is not interested in
it, does not know anything about it or regards it as too difficult. From the
group who did provide a relevant answer, 44% links science to research,
20% thinks of science as knowledge, and a minority of 16% associates it
with particular disciplines. It is interesting to see that natural sciences and
physiology/medicine are mentioned most of the times in this case, yet, few
mention sociology, and no respondent mentions linguistics, law and
theology.32 The Image of Science loosely suggests that natural sciences
and physiology are more characterised by the public as empirical, thereby
regarded scientific, while law and theology are less empirical, and
therefore not scientific. 33 When looked at the results for the politicians and
science journalists, they give more associations than the lay respondents.
Politicians and science journalists also stress research, but more than the
'lay' group they emphasize procedure, in the former group 31% and the
latter group 35%. Associations as validity, falsifiable, hypothesis are
mentioned as well as objectivity and independence. The latter two
associations are never mentioned by the lay respondents. Interesting to
see is that the politicians and journalists never mention particular
disciplines but rather stress research and procedure, thereby perhaps
emphasizing the aspect of empiricism even more than the lay
34
respondents.
When these results are linked to the literature, some results stand
out, prima facie. The fact that about one-third of the respondents does not
know anything about science, regards it as too difficult or is just
uninterested reminds of Bensaude-Vincents ideas. Science and the public
have become increasingly isolated from each other in the twentieth

31 SCP rapport bijlage 124

32 SCP p18

33 Scp 19

34 Scp 20
century. 35 Since there is no further enquiry about what it is within science
that is exactly too difficult, or why one is not interested, I think that with
these results it is at least clear that between a significant proportion of the
population and science, a gap exists. Nevertheless, the proportion of the
'lay' group which provided survey-relevant associations with science (44%)
emphasized research. Research in science these days is characterized by
different methodologies and strategies, which vary according to
disciplines, as the Image of Science notes. 36 However, the 'lay' group
associates science qua disciplines with natural sciences and physiology.
These disciplines are mainly characterized by empirical research. On the
contrary, literature studies and law have a less empirical character and are
never mentioned. 37 Something of Bensaude-Vincent's idea of the
identification of science with physics becomes clear here. There is no
explicit connection with physics, but the stress on research and the
mentioned disciplines provide at least some ground for it. In addition, the
fact that no humanities as literature and theology are mentioned by the
'lay' group is more illustrative for this idea. With regard to the science
journalists and politicians, it is interesting to see that none of them
mention disciplines but rather general methodological features. This
indicates that they have a more detailed image of science, but perhaps
only about a part of it: as The image of science puts it, the aspects they
mention are in general ingredients of empirical research. 38
To stick for a moment with the science journalists and the public: to
have a hint where this general view of the public concerning science stems
from, it is fruitful to have an idea of how the public informs itself about
science. The question in the survey providing this information is Do you
ever read about science in papers, journals or books? 39 When confirmed by
the respondent, authors as well as titles of books and journals could be
mentioned, and an enquiry is also made about the frequency an individual
reads about science.
When looked to the results, 43% of the respondents never reads
anything about science. The proportion of respondents that often reads
about science is 17%. Of the 57% of the respondents who read something
35 Bensaude vincent p108

36 scp 19

37 scp 18

38 scp 20

39 scp 124
about science now and then, 76% is informed by daily papers and 14% by
40
(popular) scientific journals.
When these results are linked to the literature, at first sight it stands
out that of the respondents that actually read about science (57%), more
than three quarters does this by reading the daily newspaper. This
indicates that this could be more or less accidental. Only a very small
percentage of 1.7% reads popular scientific journals (such as Natuur &
Techniek, National Geographic and Psychologie). Established academic
science journals as Science are read by less than 2.5% of the respondents.
41
This indicates that science communication in the sense of popular
science journals has a rather narrow reach. So, the daily paper has a wider
reach and larger impact in determining one's view of science, and one
would expect of it an overview of scientific conclusions from various
disciplines, thereby potentially receding the gap. Adriana Esmeijer
demonstrated in 1999 that the contrary is the case. Science sections in
Dutch papers focus mostly on natural sciences, medicine and technology,
since these are the priority areas in the science policy of the Dutch
administration. Conclusions of linguistics and literature studies are hard to
find. 42 In The Image of science, a similar conclusion is established: science
journalists are unequivocal focused on the natural sciences. 43 So, there is
reason to think that the notion that science is being more and more
identified with physics is being enhanced by science journalists who focus
mainly on natural sciences, medicine and technology in the daily papers.
When looked to the popular science journals that are read, these are
mostly about natural and empirical sciences, also contributing to
Bensaude-Vincents idea. In the survey, also results about science
communication by documentaries and television shows regarding science
were present, but it would take too much to discuss them here.
The next issue I want to address is whether the public regards itself
as an ignorant mass, that is, I want to know whether science is perceived
as an ultimate authority producing infallible knowledge. As Bensaude-
Vincent notes, in the early eighteenth century a more Enlightened notion
of public opinion was present. Individuals needed to be capable of making
their own judgments, since this was necessary for being free from political

40 SCP p46

41 scp 46

42 Refereren aan dat boek van esmeijer, anders

http://www.uu.nl/wetfilos/wetfil00/esmeijer.html

43 Scp 75
and religious authority. 44 Also, the idea that science was nothing more
than a more sophisticated form of common sense was important. 45 The
twentieth century view undermined this Enlightened view. The idea to
never rely on the views of someone else had become impossible. This idea
is also important in the work of Ren Sudre, as Bensaude-Vincent remarks.
According to Sudre, scientists and public become increasingly separated
due to the inevitable increase in formalization and mathematization of
science as time passes by. Since science is associated with something far-
removed and sovereign, it employs the place of the sacred, the public on
the contrary is deprived of its faculty of judgment. 46 One interesting
example of this is in the literature is perhaps given by Michael Lynch, who
illustrates the wide acclaim and acceptance authority of DNA profiling in
the late twentieth century, even while questions remained unanswered
about statistical uncertainty. With regard to the ignorant public in this
case, one should not overestimate the infallibleness of DNA tests and
instead remember that forensic DNA tests are always situated in a specific
criminal case, and that public and jury have to contemplate all relevant
singular elements in that case. 47 Focusing solely on what DNA profiling
says can cause the jury or a public to overlook the uncertainties inevitably
connected with the collection of the DNA-material: forensic evidence is
often collected in non-controlled environments, and only a few police
officers who collect it are trained in preserving the integrity of it. 48 In
addition, forensic scientists also do not have the same credentials as
scientists in the academic medical laboratories, and they often work under
case pressure. Moreover, one should not forget that DNA-profiling
techniques often contracted to private firms which have interests in their
own methods.
I connect the question about the authority and infallibleness of
science to the survey in the following way. In The image of science the
respondent is asked to express his opinion about a few statements
regarding the authority of science on a four point scale, ranging from
agree strongly & agree to disagree & disagree strongly. Other
possibilities were neither agree nor disagree and I do not know. The
44 Bensaude vincent p102

45 Idem 108

46 Idem p 108, 109

47 Linch article

48 Lynch article p96

first statement regarding the authority of science I use is parents who
raise their children badly should be taught by psychologists how it must
be done .49 It is interesting to note that this statement seems to imply that
there is consensus among psychologists about the proper way of raising a
child. The second statement I use is The use of research about the causes
of criminality helps preventing crimes and offences. 50 Again, it seems
that this statement invokes the idea that within science, for example
criminology, consensus exists about the causes of criminality. Concerning
the infallibility of science, for this paper I take it as meaning that science
delivers unbiased and interest-free knowledge, since there is
unsurprisingly no question regarding the epistemological or philosophical
issues of science in the survey. The survey addresses this question with
the following question: When in the Netherlands research is carried out
for a client, how large is the clients influence on the results, according to
you? Is the client very much influential, very influential, not much
influential, minimal influential or not influential at all?51 Interestingly, The
image of science in the Netherlands holds that regarding these questions,
the lay respondents are regarded as unable to yield any insights. They
can neither provide any insight about the quality of Dutch research in
general. 52 The result of this is that only the opinions of science journalists
are used.
When looked to the results of the question regarding parents and
psychology, one sees that 12% strongly agrees and 40% agrees that
parents who raise their children badly should be taught psychologists to
know how it must be done. Further, 28% neither agrees nor disagrees,
14% disagrees and 2% strongly disagrees, and 4% does not know. For the
question regarding research and the causes of criminality, 7% strongly
agrees and 47% agrees that the use of research about the causes of
criminality , 24% neither agrees nor disagrees, 24% disagrees and

onderzoek=minder misdaden

49 SCP 129-130

50 Scp 129

51 Scp 134

52 Scp 85
 Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent

Valid sterk mee eens 129 7,3 7,3 7,3

mee eens 827 46,5 46,5 53,8

noch mee eens, noch mee

428 24,1 24,1 77,9
oneens

mee oneens 287 16,2 16,2 94,0

sterk mee oneens 42 2,4 2,4 96,4

ik weet het niet 64 3,6 3,6 100,0

Total 1777 100,0 100,0

aanpassen aan techniek

Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent

Valid volledig mee eens 42 2,4 2,4 2,4

mee eens 480 27,0 27,0 29,4

noch mee eens, noch mee

674 37,9 37,9 67,3
oneens

mee oneens 446 25,1 25,1 92,4

volledig mee oneens 94 5,3 5,3 97,7

ik weet het niet 41 2,3 2,3 100,0

Total 1777 100,0 100,0

 http://www.uu.nl/wetfilos/wetfil00/esmeijer.html

Artikel dat vertelt waarom het beeld in Nederland mbt wetenschap

vertekend is: wetenschapsjournalisten focussen teveel op exacte
wetenschappen.

Discussie: vertellen dat t jammer is dat er geen contrasterend beeld v/d

wetenschap is geponeerd, en gevraagd, dat had interessante dingen
kunnen opleveren.

Misschien de kamerleden gewoon helemaal weghalen?

De hele tijd lay people zeggen of zeggen dat de survey spreekt van
Dutch people?