Simon Lock

Why should we promote public engagement with science

This introductory essay looks back on the two decades since the journal Public Understanding of Science was launched. Drawing on the invited commentaries in this special issue, we can see narratives of continuity and change around the practice and politics of public engagement with science. Public engagement would seem to be a necessary but insufficient part of opening up science and its governance. Those of us who have been involved in advocating, conducting and evaluating public engagement practice could be accused of over-promising. If we, as social scientists, are going to continue a normative commitment to the idea of public engagement, we should therefore develop new lines of argument and analysis. Our support for the idea of public engagement needs qualifying, as part of a broader, more ambitious interest in the idea of publicly engaged science.

Beyond Academia – Interrogating Research Impact in the Research Excellence Framework

Big changes to the way in which research funding is allocated to UK universities were brought about in the Research Excellence Framework (REF), overseen by the Higher Education Funding Council, England. Replacing the earlier Research Assessment Exercise, the purpose of the REF was to assess the quality and reach of research in UK universities–and allocate funding accordingly. For the first time, this included an assessment of research ‘impact’, accounting for 20% of the funding allocation. In this article we use a text mining technique to investigate the interpretations of impact put forward via impact case studies in the REF process. We find that institutions have developed a diverse interpretation of impact, ranging from commercial applications to public and cultural engagement activities. These interpretations of impact vary from discipline to discipline and between institutions, with more broad-based institutions depicting a greater variety of impacts. Comparing the interpretations with the score given by REF, we found no evidence of one particular interpretation being more highly rewarded than another. Importantly, we also found a positive correlation between impact score and [overall research] quality score, suggesting that impact is not being achieved at the expense of research excellence.

Correction: Beyond Academia – Interrogating Research Impact in the Research Excellence Framework

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0168533.].

Sexual Nature? (Re)presenting Sexuality and Science in the Museum

Abstract The past 15 years have seen dramatic changes in social norms around sex and sexuality in the UK and worldwide. In 2011, the London Natural History Museum (NHM) contributed to these debates by opening the temporary exhibition Sexual Nature, which aimed to provide ‘a candid exploration of sex in the natural world’ whilst also drawing in an under-represented audience of young adults. Sexual Nature provides an opportunity to explore Macdonalds ‘politics of display’ in the mutual construction of (public) scientific knowledge, society and sexuality, at a time of intense contestation over sexual norms. Whilst Sexual Nature both reflected and contributed to major reframings of sexuality and what science can say about it, the assumption that it would be possible to present this topic as morally neutral, reliable and uncontested, in line with traditions of public science, proved to be problematic. The language of the exhibition moved back and forth between human/animal similarity and difference, and between scientific and cultural tropes as the NHM tried to maintain epistemic authority whilst also negotiating the moral boundaries of acceptable sexual behaviour. The topic of sex pushed the museum far beyond its usual expertise in the natural sciences towards the unfamiliar territory of the social and human, resulting in an ad hoc search for, and negotiation with, alternative sources of expertise. Boon et al.’s co-curation approach to exhibition building has the potential to extend the NHMs audience-driven strategy, whilst also producing a more coherent and nuanced exhibition about the science of sex.

Black-boxing the Evidence: Planning Regulation and Major Renewable Energy Infrastructure Projects in England and Wales

Abstract How does a regulatory regime cope with the demands of being evidence based? Given the contestation and uncertainties associated with knowledge claims, what are the processes at work? This paper addresses these questions in the context of a relatively new planning regime concerned with consenting major infrastructure projects, focussing on renewable energy. The paper adopts a Science and Technology Studies perspective, showing how black-boxing plays a key role in establishing knowledge-claims that can support regulatory decision-making. However, it also shows how black boxes do not stay closed and, hence, there is a need for other means of closing down debate.

Local voices on renewable energy projects: the performative role of the regulatory process for major offshore infrastructure in England and Wales

ABSTRACT There is currently a considerable emphasis on delivering major renewable energy infrastructure projects. Such projects will have impacts on local communities; some impacts may be perceived as positive but others will be viewed more negatively. Any just regulatory process for considering and permitting such infrastructure will need to heed the concerns that local communities voice. But what counts as a local voice? In this paper it is argued that the regulatory process plays a performative role, constructing what counts as a local voice. Furthermore, this has consequences for how regulatory deliberations proceed and the outcomes of regulatory processes. The empirical basis for this argument is a study of major offshore renewable energy infrastructure in England and Wales and the way that it is regulated through a specific regime – the Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects (NSIPs) regime established by the Planning Act 2008. Through a detailed study of eight projects that have passed through the regime, the analysis unfolds the way that the voices of local residents, local businesses, local NGOs and local authorities are constructed in the key boundary object of the Examining Authority’s report; it then draws out the implications for the mitigation measures that are negotiated. The research suggests that what counts as a local voice is constrained by how the performative role of the NSIPs regulatory regime differentiates between interests and suggests that new ways of giving voice to local people are required.

Do local economic interests matter when regulating nationally significant infrastructure? The case of renewable energy infrastructure projects:

Government policy in the UK, as in many countries, sees investment in infrastructure projects – particularly large ones – as a key means of supporting the national economy. But where does this leave local economic interests in the loci of these projects? And how does the regulation of such projects handle these interests? These are the questions addressed by this paper in the context of renewable energy projects that are regulated by the Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects regime. Drawing on original research into the regulation of 12 projects – and using thematic analysis of key documents and focus groups with local participants – the analysis highlights the limited understanding of the local economy presented, the challenges that local businesses face in participating and the partial protection offered to them. It concludes by proposing agendas for reforms and future research.

Artefacts, the Gaze and Sensory Experience: Mediating Local Environments in the Planning Regulation of Major Renewable Energy Infrastructure in England and Wales

An ANT perspective suggests that artefacts can play a key role within the regulatory process. Such artefacts are material entities in their own right, and they also mediate the perception and understanding of the natural or built environment. The idea of planning as the circulation of artefacts is explored through research on offshore wind farms and other major low-carbon energy infrastructure in England and Wales, where a distinct regulatory regime for Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects (NSIPs) operates. Detailed research highlights not only the role of maps, photographs, other visualisations and a range of other artefacts but also the reliance on the “gaze” and embodied experience of the key regulatory decision-makers in the regulation of these projects.

Cultures of Incomprehension?: The Legacy of the Two Cultures Debate at the End of the Twentieth Century

This paper considers the impact of Snows Two Cultures thesis on debates about the place of science and scientists in society in the latter part of the twentieth century. Debates concerned with the public understanding of science and the ‘science wars’, both of which relied to some extent on the dividing of society into ‘two cultures’, are contextualised within longer efforts by scientists to popularise definitions of science and society and their relationship with other epistemic communities. This paper argues that we should think about all these episodes as part of ongoing rhetorical boundary work, reflective of strains and stressors on science as an institution. The two cultures debate has provided one powerful rhetorical device, amongst many, for ongoing boundary work to establish or question science as the dominant form of knowledge in society and delineate who is allowed to speak for it, and wield its power.