Some of the material is New Zealand specific: it’s a small scholarly community and there is little replication of expertise many scientists work for commercially oriented, state owned research centres so there is commercial pressure on many – I suspect a bigger proportion than might be found in other bigger communities. Whether or not there are forces at play that silence scientists, and what kinds of approaches to public engagement might scientists best use under which circumstances. The four central issues are the Fukushima nuclear meltdown in 2011, and from New Zealand a botulism scare in baby formula in 2013, questions of the addition of folic acid to bread in 2012 and the Christchurch earthquakes of 2011, among others.
It draws on several recent, New Zealand centric but not exclusive, public interest issues where policy and public debates have turned on scientific data, contributions by scientists to those debates and the meaning of the evidence they produce and introduce. Shaun Hendy’s excellent essay (it’s a quick but powerful read) is built around the tag line on the cover “Science that is not heard is not science at all” (also on p100).
The whole notion of ‘science communication’ has become increasingly significant in recent years, with, for instance, senior academic posts dedicated to the area (I know or know of a good number of Professors of Science Communication, or similar titles – including one at my own university).
0 kommentar(er)
