Living Longer, Better, Wiser: Putting Research on the Public Agenda

Remarks by Public Agenda President Ruth A. Wooden before the Research!America Annual Meeting and Forum.

Is science literacy essential for the public to make sound judgments about science policy choices?

I don’t want to get into a debate about the value of science literacy. Of course, we need to encourage more curiosity about science, more science teaching in our schools. But, as Daniel Yankelovich would say, that assumption – that science illiteracy among the public is the problem – misses the point when we talk about science policy.

I would perhaps go a bit further and say that the goal of bringing non-scientists around to a more scientific mindset creates an atmosphere of moral superiority and patronizing of your audience that backfires in today’s distrustful climate. It also absolves the scientific community from examining how their practices and vastly different world view contribute to the present-day gap between scientist and citizen. Here’s why that’s important to this discussion.

The public’s cognitive framework differs sharply from that of the scientist. The public makes its determinations less on the basis of analyzing data than on deeply-held values. To better engage the public – which is essential for any major initiative to succeed – it is preferable to set the goal as public judgment rather than public education.

And scientists must lead this engagement process with the public. Why? Because you know best what’s at stake. And because, quite frankly, in the policy arena you need the public more than the public needs you. The public has a right to participate in the national debate about science policy. Not simply because we pay for much of it – which we do – but because of science’s central importance to our own world.

Without a strong public voice, decision makers are left rudderless – or worse, prey to special interests. By engaging the public around issues like climate change or genetics, scientists must create the conditions in which the public can find its voice and help pave the way for real solutions.

So, how does the public get to sound judgment on complex scientific issues if not through science literacy? Let me say this first – the term, “sound judgment” is a term that has special meaning to social scientists such as Dan Yankelovich. It is not a soft concept. It is part of a conceptual framework that is used to describe the stages the public goes through to arrive at their policy preferences. At the core of this framework is a basic assumption – that policy decisions are always about choices.

What’s involved here, then, is an approach that helps the public engage with the issues. It follows predictable stages as people test various choices against their values and beliefs, wrestle with their “wishful” thinking, and ultimately arrive at a considered conclusion. This is a social process. People reach judgment on complex issues by engaging in dialogue with others, as opposed to absorbing information in isolation. And such a values-based social process of arriving at understanding differs dramatically from the analytical scientific framework. The discrepancy here means that efforts to foster public engagement simply by instructing the public in the facts are largely irrelevant and ineffective. The public really needs to come to terms with how various scenarios or choices fit with their values.

The first stages in this process involve creating awareness of issues, imbuing them with urgency and personal relevance – a job uniquely suited to the media. The next stages are more difficult. They involve framing choices for the public to consider – and framing them in such a way that has the proper balance between scientific content and non-scientific variables and political realities. Most importantly, each of the options framed for the public must be put forward in its absolute best light with pros, cons, and trade-offs fairly presented in approachable terms.

Then the public dialogue can really begin. Dan Yankelovich calls this phase “working through.” And it requires special techniques – especially listening techniques – so that the public is engaged in such a way as to avoid the two kinds of dialogue that kill public meetings – either (i) a large forum (visualize your average school board meeting or your congressperson’s meeting) dominated or hijacked by advocates and crazies or (ii) a pontificating, jargon-laden lecture by the elites. But if done right, these good engagement dialogues will restore your faith in the basic decency of public discourse.

It does require considerable “working through” for the public to reconcile possible choices with deeply-held beliefs and behaviors. But once the larger public has understood the trade-offs associated with complex issues, leadership – in this case, political and scientific leadership – will have the insight into the public’s most deeply-held values and a view toward the policy options that best resonate with them.

Finally, what this process of true public engagement requires is a different kind of scientific leadership – one that is committed to breaking the deadlock between science and citizens and taking responsibility for a partnership of respect and trust in the public.

Lest you think this deadlock between scientists and the public is a curse of today’s cynical times, I found this quote from 1934. When they were writing The Science of Life, a survey of science for the general reader, H.G. Wells gave his co-author, Julian Huxley, some advice:

The reader for whom you write is just as intelligent as you are but does not possess your store of knowledge.
He is not to be offended by a recital in technical language.
He is not a student preparing for an examination. To be sure, his sense of literary form and his sense of humour are probably far greater than yours. Remember, Shakespeare, Milton, Plato, T.H. Huxley, and Darwin all wrote for him.