British Association report “Science in Society”

Response from Institute of Food Research to the OST Consultation Questionnaire

Prepared by Dr Nick Walton, Institute of Food Research

2 July 2003

The result of OST's public consultation is now available on their website at:

www.dti.gov.uk/ost/ostbusiness/puset/pdfs/govtresponse_0903.pdf

The IFR Response to the Consultation follows:

The Office of Science and Technology's Response to the British Association report 'Science in Society': Questionnaire

You or your Organisation

3. We are committed to open consultation. Questions in this first section will enable us to have a better understanding of who has responded to this exercise.

Q1 Your name, postal address and e-mail address

Dr Nick Walton, Institute of Food Research, Norwich Research Park, Colney, Norwich NR4 7UA
nick.walton@ifr.ac.uk

Q2 In what capacity are you responding?

On behalf of an organisation

Q3 If responding on behalf of an organisation: what sector is the organisation in?

Public

4. The remainder of the questionnaire addresses each of the BA's main recommendations.

The OST's Public Engagement with Science and Technology Team Activities Database

5. BA Recommendation: A detailed and ongoing mapping of science in society activities is provided through an actively-managed database, in order to provide high quality, comprehensive and up to date information to the OST and to other organisations, and potentially capable of development as a UK-wide information service for the public.

6. OST Response: OST would like to gain a better overview of the activities and initiatives in the science in society field. This is important in order to place our own work and that of others in a clearer context. We therefore need a better information gathering system.

7. So that we can gain an overview quickly, we intend to undertake a snapshot survey of activities. This would seek to establish how much money is being spent in this area, by whom and on what types of activities. This would meet OST's own immediate information needs but may be less useful to the wider community.

8. Thus we also propose to establish a more systematic approach to activity information gathering along the lines of the BA recommendation. This would probably be on a pilot basis for 2 years. Through a database/web manager, we would encourage organisations to offer information (on a pro forma or through standardised presentation on their own web site) about their activities in two stages. In the first stage they would provide an outline of the activities they are likely to be focusing on in the forthcoming year. Where not available already, this would provide the community with earlier and greater visibility of individual programmes and could encourage greater co-operation and co-ordination. Information need not be detailed at this stage, but could include: objectives, type of activity, subject area, proposed budget, and point of contact within the organisation.

9. The second stage would focus on activities and initiatives after they have taken place. This would build on information already provided and cover, for example: make-up and size of audience(s) reached; cost; effectiveness measured against objectives and link to more detailed evaluation if available. Information on effectiveness will help the community to share information and learning on what works.

10. Ongoing schemes and initiatives could provide a regular, probably annual, input to the database.

11. OST will then undertake regular, possibly annual, analysis of the stage two information. Areas to be looked at would include: the types of activity being undertaken; the audiences reached; funding; and subject coverage. Over time we would be able to track shifts in emphasis in these areas. The results of such analysis could be presented to the annual conference (see paragraph 36) and would inform the development of OST's own activities and those of others.

12. As the BA report recognises, the success of a database/web site largely depends on the willingness of organisations to contribute information and on this being utilised. We would not, therefore, want to place onerous information requirements on contributors and would wish to build on existing information sources as much as possible. We would, for example, need to utilise information gathered on National Science Week activities and by SETNET.

13. All information gathered in this way would be placed on a web site. Other features of such a site would include:

• a directory of organisations active in this field. This would build on OST's 'Science Connections' and provide information on the organisation's science in society objectives, points of contact, links to information on their own sites, including grant information, and possibly the activities 'forward look' mentioned above;
  
• a directory of research and reports published on science in society related issues;
  
• best practice for evaluating science in society activities.

14. Again, much of this information already exists on other web sites, for example 'psci-com', and so the intention would be to work with existing information providers.

Q4 Do you think that the establishment of a database/web site of science and society activities would be useful?
Yes

If yes:

a) What sort of information should it contain?;
b) Would you be willing to contribute to it?;
c) Do you favour a web based approach (and thus make information
available to the public)?

a) The features in 13) above should be included. The structure and thesaurus would obviously need to take account of the background and interests of a range of potential users (the public at large, teachers and lecturers, health professionals etc.), each requiring different levels and types of interaction.
b) IFR would in principle be willing to contribute.
c) We favour a web-based facility. IFR has been keen to promote web-based information on food science for several years.

Q5 Do you believe that an annual snapshot survey would be a useful alternative approach?

No

If no, please explain

The snapshot survey would be useful for those working in science communication and science policy. It would therefore be a complementary, rather than an alternative, activity.

Regular national public surveys

15. BA Recommendation: A nationally representative survey of the public is carried out regularly to establish the extent of participation by various groups of the public in science in society activities, as well as information on public priorities and publicly visible topics and activities, including awareness through the media. It is particularly important that both the Government and providers of initiatives work from the basis of a detailed understanding of public interests and needs.

16. OST response: We agree that public interests and needs should be a key consideration in the development of science in society activities and that a nationally representative survey will help to establish these. Such a survey would also help to establish the penetration and effectiveness of existing activity and help to develop projects and programmes aimed at widening participation within society. In addition, it would enable us to track any changes in public attitudes to science through a time series of data that builds on Science and the Public .

17. We propose that such a survey be conducted every two years and include within its scope:

• public interest in existing science in society activity,
  
• actual participation and experience of this;
  
• barriers to participation;
  
• awareness of science and science related issues;
  
• public attitudes to science and scientists.

18. The survey sample would be large enough to provide sufficient data on groups traditionally under-represented in science in society activities, for example, minority ethnic groups.

19. The survey would obviously need to complement existing work such as the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) supported project: Towards a Better Map: Science, the Public and the Media and the Leverhulme Trust and ESRC supported project, Public Perceptions of risk, science and governance. We will therefore be working with ESRC and others to prepare the survey. The results would be presented to the annual conference.

Q6 Do you think that a national public survey is needed?
Yes

If yes, what should it cover?

We agree with the scope proposed in 17) above. It will be important to place emphasis on generic concepts, for example public understanding of hazard and risk, attitudes to emerging technologies, and ethical issues raised (especially) by new prospects in genome research and developmental biology.

Needs analysis

20. BA Recommendation: Market analysis is commissioned to draw together the mapping data, new survey work and, by relating back to previous analyses, identify trends over time to provide a complete picture of the public's needs, how existing activities meet needs and where there are gaps in provision.

21. OST Response: Where OST would seem to have a clear niche is in working with others in commissioning and evaluating research in the science in society field, sharing the results and encouraging others to use it. The needs analysis recommended here and the information gathering recommended above could be a key component of this. OST's own funding priorities would be helpfully informed by identification of the areas which are poorly covered by other providers and of the areas where there is overprovision.

22. If we were to establish an activities database/web site and undertake regular national public surveys then we agree that we would need to link the activities together in order to see whether existing activity matches public needs and whether there are gaps and overlaps in provision. Such information could then be addressed at an annual conference and recommendations made for action.

23. Such analysis should not be limited to work commissioned by OST. It should seek to draw on other relevant data (for example, from EU funded work) so that as clear a picture as possible can be developed of science in society provision and impact, and public needs and interests.

24. OST will, therefore, commission research on a biennial basis which will compare data from the national public survey and the activities database/web site, drawing on other research as appropriate. The resulting report will be presented to the annual conference with suggestions for action.

Q7 Do you agree that a needs analysis should take place?

Yes

If yes, what other work could it draw on?

In the food-science field (for example), there has already been appreciable EC- and FSA-funded work to investigate public attitudes to dietary and food-safety information and to emerging technologies, notably genetic modification. Some of this work has compared attitudes in several European countries and across socio-economic groups. Such studies need to be carefully designed to ensure that meaningful, unambiguous and representative responses are obtained.

Activity evaluation

25. BA Recommendation: A range of activities is evaluated, linked to the survey of the public, exploring which activities are most engaging for particular groups of people. This might include evaluation of the relative awareness and impact of many small activities to larger national or regional events.

26. OST response: All science and society activity should have clear objectives which allow for meaningful evaluation. However, establishing satisfactory success criteria is difficult in this field. It is far easier to count numbers of participants in an activity than measuring the actual impact, but it is obviously the latter that is more important.

27. Working with others, we will seek to establish best practice for evaluating science in society activities, commissioning additional research if this proves necessary. We would then promulgate this and other relevant work.

28. OST will continue to develop existing evaluation of those activities it currently supports, such as National Science Week and the BA Annual Festival. As a strand of this, we will compare these activities, along with others, in terms of their reach and effectiveness against their objectives.

Q8 Is there any specific research you feel should be conducted on evaluation techniques for science in society activities? If yes, please describe.

Evaluating accurately the outcomes and benefits of science in society activities is not easy; if the activities are effective, the real benefits (for example, impacts on higher education or career choices) will be relatively long-term. Evaluation targeted to the outcomes of specific schemes needs to be complemented by longer-term surveys that aim to uncover the motivations behind attitudes to science and how and why these are changing over time.

Special group research

29. BA Recommendation: Qualitative research is carried out among groups for which there is particular policy commitment, such as women, the socially excluded and minority ethnic groups, in order to establish the best means of engaging such groups and making science relevant to them.

30. OST response: We need to ensure that no section of society is excluded from science in society activities. Activities should thus be needs based and properly targeted. Data from the national public surveys mentioned above will help with identifying specific audiences' needs and the development of ideas for projects to meet them. Additionally, one of the themes of the second call for proposals under the ESRC's Science in Society research programme is 'Science and gender, ethnicity and the lifecycle'. This could provide invaluable information about specific societal groups' relationship with science and how science in society activities might address their needs.

31. Projects that seek to widen participation in science in society activities will continue to be a priority for funding through the Copus grants scheme (which is managed by the Royal Society and funded in large part by OST) and OST's development grants (see paragraph 45).

Q9 Do you believe that this approach will help to address the needs of under-represented groups?
Yes

Media monitoring

32. BA Recommendation: A media monitoring service is established to support organisations engaged in developing science in society activities, so that they can be better and more immediately informed about issues of public interest as reflected in
the media.

33. OST response: We do not believe that it is feasible to establish a media monitoring service for the whole of the science communication community at reasonable cost. We would suggest that organisations use existing, free, services such as that provided by the Royal Society.

34. The development of our own programme will be usefully informed by media related research being funded by ESRC and others. In addition, it will be important for us to know in summary what the media 'background' was against which to evaluate the impact of particular events. Such a summary might take the form of an annual digest.

Q10 Do you think that an annual digest as described above would be useful? If yes, what else might it cover? If no, what could be done instead?

We agree with 33) above that there is no point in "reinventing other organisations' wheels".

We agree with the comments in 34) above, for example as they relate to the experience of the various agri-food crises of recent years.

Annual providers' conference/forum

35. BA Recommendation: An annual conference of organisers and funders of initiatives is supported, to review, discuss and respond to the mapping and survey results, to share practice and to identify areas for co-operation and collaboration.

36. OST response: We welcome this proposal. Such a conference would provide an excellent opportunity for organisations to undertake collective strategic thinking, discuss the information gathered through some of the above activities and recommend priorities for future work. It could thus provide an important input to the development of OST's public engagement programme and those of other funders.

37. The BA, with support from the Royal Society, is organising a science communication conference for 22/23 May at the Institution of Electrical Engineers. This will provide an opportunity for participants to identify opportunities for co-operation and collaboration. We will not be in a position to announce the results of our consultation at the conference (12 weeks is the standard minimum period for public consultations) or of course the results of work we undertake subsequent to the consultation. However, as mentioned above, we would expect such work would to provide some of the focus of the conference in future years.

Q11 Do you believe that an annual providers' conference should take place?
Yes

If yes, what should its objectives be?

We agree with the broad objectives of 36) above, but settling a precise agenda for such a wide area of activity may be quite difficult. A first conference might essentially be treated best as a "scoping exercise".

Networking fund

38. BA Recommendation: A networking fund is established to facilitate all year round networking for collaboration and co-operation between funders and providers.

39. OST response: We welcome this proposal. Co-operation and the sharing of best practice can both stem from regular networking. We would therefore wish to see successful existing networks strengthened, merged, and new ones established where there is a strong case for doing so.

40. OST is already providing funding in this area, for example, to ECSITE-UK. We will consider bids for other networking proposals in our new grant round.

41. We agree with the BA report that such networks could be of various types and could be based on particular activities, geography or scientific issue. The annual conference would provide an opportunity for such networks to update others and for participants to try and make further synergies.

Q12 Do you believe that OST should consider supporting networking proposals?
Yes

If yes, what might we support?
No detailed comment at this stage - this would be an issue for discussion at the initial conference (Q11).

OST work plan consultation

42. BA Recommendation: The OST consults periodically on its objectives and work plan for the following period, perhaps synchronised with the Comprehensive Spending Review, to ensure that its programme is informed and influenced by the perspectives of a wide range of stakeholders.

43. OST response: The development of OST's science in society activity will benefit from openness and transparency and we will therefore consult on it at regular intervals. It would be logical for this to be linked to the Government's Spending Review cycle. In practice, this would mean that we would consult on our overall programme every two years. However, in order that we can respond to 'market' needs we will set some of our priorities for our grants scheme on an annual basis and would therefore welcome input from the annual conference mentioned above.

Q13 Do you think that this frequency of consultation provides enough opportunity for external input?
Yes

OST call for proposals

44. BA Recommendation: The OST commissions work and offers calls for proposals based on the information available through this process, with specific panels to examine each call to ensure appropriate peer review, fairness and transparency.

45. OST response: We continue to believe that there is a role for an OST funded, theme based, reactive grant scheme in this area, this is because: many of the projects we fund are innovative and thus attract an element of risk and would not proceed without our support; many fill gaps in provision which we and others believe need to be filled; we do not generally offer 100% of the funding required for a project and thus provide leverage for additional resources to be spent in this area; many of the projects we fund focus on science as a whole and therefore do not easily fit within other funding sources' remits.

46. The process of information gathering described above will inform the direction and themes of the OST public engagement programme and thus its grant scheme. Our funding for the Copus grants scheme will continue for another year. From financial year 2004/05 we propose to consolidate our support for small, medium and large grants into one scheme and sub-contract the management of this scheme. There will be at least one call for proposals each year.

47. Based on our own assessment of where OST support could be best directed, our proposed themes for our next grant round are:

• Science in Society: projects which encourage public engagement with and dialogue about science, or consultation on science issues that feeds into public policy development.
• Widening participation: projects that seek to widen participation in science in society activity through reaching new audiences and increasing the effectiveness of existing activity.
• Collaboration and Networking: projects that involve cooperation with other organisations to increase the impact of activity.
• Good Practice in Science Communication: projects to develop and disseminate good practice in science communication including evaluation methodology.
• Science in the media: projects that support informed media coverage of science issues.

Q14 Do you agree with the above themes for the OST grant scheme?
Yes

We agree fully with the above themes; IFR is particularly interested in promoting good practice in science communication.
(In this context, the 153rd Meeting of the Society for General Microbiology at UMIST, Manchester in September sees the launch of the 'SGM Food and Beverages Group Science Communication Prize', sponsored by IFR. This prize is designed to encourage younger junior scientists (PhD students and those in their first post-doctoral or research appointment) to develop and demonstrate their skills in communication. Presenters in the early stages of a project will not be penalised by lack of results. The prize of £100 and a certificate will be awarded to the presenter who in the view of the judges most clearly and concisely communicates the rationale for, and planned outputs of, the work they are presenting in a style that is suitable for scientists or technologists who, whilst not necessarily having expert knowledge of food microbiology, might have to make research management/financial/policy decisions based on the information given.)

Evaluation of the process

48. BA Recommendation: The OST commissions an evaluation of this process and suite of activities to inform the next cycle of activity.

49. OST response: A lot of new activity is being proposed above. Once the new programme is established we will need to evaluate not only its individual strands, but also how it fits together as a coherent programme and whether it has successfully provided us with the information and mechanisms described in the introduction.

Advisory Group

50. BA Recommendation: The OST [should] appoint a small advisory committee of independent expert individuals to advise it.

51. OST response: We intend to establish a small strategy advisory group to help us to review and respond to the material coming from forums and surveys, helping us to identify, for example, what areas the next round of OST grant funding should address.