People and Science Magazine September 2013

PEO

PLE&

SCIEN

CE

SEPTEMBER

2013WWW.BR

ITISHSC

IENCEA

SSOCIATIO

N.O

RG

£6

Public values underlying futureenergy productionand use

Turn maths and science education on its head

The dementia lab

CONTENTS PEOPLE&SCIENCE

Peter McOwan andCharlotte Thorley

PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT AND THE RESEARCHEXCELLENCEFRAMEWORK

p18

Cathryn Mitchell andJoe Kinrade

THE DIFFERENTAGES OF SPACEWEATHER

p22

Jon Turney andSue Hordijenko

OBITUARY: DAVID DICKSON

p24

Jo Evershed

TURN MATHS AND SCIENCEEDUCATION ON ITS HEAD!

p20

EDITOR Wendy Barnaby

SHORTS EDITOR Joanna Carpenter

CHAIR OF EDITORIAL COMMITTEENancy Lane

EDITORIAL COMMITTEE Anjana Ahuja, Sheila Anderson, Martin Bauer, Clive Cookson, David Fisk, Fiona Fox, Fiona MacRae, Ken Okona-Mensah, Aarathi Prasad,Elizabeth Seward, Adele Walker, Amy Strange

MULTI-READER SUBSCRIPTIONS United Kingdom: £60 Europe outside UK: £70 Outside Europe: £80

People & Science is one of a number of freepublications available to individual membersand supporters of the British ScienceAssociation. For free subscription, visit www.britishscienceassociation.org orcontact the supporter development team by calling 0870 241 0664 or [email protected].

The magazine is available at its website,www.britishscienceassociation.org/ps

EDITORIAL ADDRESS People & Science, The British ScienceAssociation, Wellcome Wolfson Building, 165 Queens Gate, London SW7 5HD

[email protected]

People & Science is published four times a year.

Unless otherwise stated, the British ScienceAssociation retains the copyright ofeverything in People & Science.

The views expressed in this publicationdo not necessarily reflect those of the editorial committee or the British Science Association.

© 2012 British Science Association

The British Science Association is a registered charity No. 212479 and SC039236

ISSN 2040-3968

Designed by: Savage and Gray www.savageandgray.co.uk 5573/13

Printed by: Holbrooks

Printed on FSC certified recycled paper

www.britishscienceassociation.org

Cover storyPublic values underlying future energy production and use l p8Nick Pidgeon

British Science Association newsCoralie Young l p4

Government newsDepartment for Business, Innovation and Skills l p5

Shorts Joanna Carpenter l p6

SpatIs the privatisation of science in the public interest? l p10Beverley Gibbs and Alex Smith

OpinionWe should debate food security, not GMJayesh Shah |p12

The Snowden revelationsCarl Miller | p13

Two viewsCitizen science: proper science?Noel Jackson |p14Helen Roy | p15

ExchangeDigital by defaultMartyn Thomas, William Heath and Kevin Seller|p16

ReviewBiohackers l p25Amanda Rees

Correspondence l p26People & Science: Readers’ opinions

Brownie pointsDiscussing science communication l p27Tracey Brown

STEM in ParliamentRegenerative medicine in the UK l p28Phil Willis

Sounding offConnect academia to the wider world! l p29Alice Bell

Tales from the watercooler l p31Barrie Cadshaw

September 2013 | FEATURES

Martin Coath

ONE MAN’SEXPERIENCE

p19

Pauline Marstrand

PICARESQUERECOLLECTIONS

p23

Laura Phipps

THE DEMENTIALAB

p21

PAGE 3 PEOPLE&SCIENCE September 2013

Wendy Barnaby is Editor of People & [email protected]

EDITORIAL

Photo

: Horst Frie

dric

hs

The British Science Festival takes place in Newcastle inSeptember, with its usual mixture of family events, talksand debates, trips, exhibitions and extravaganzas. TheFestival has morphed out of the Association’s firstmeeting in 1831: a history of annual meetings onlybroken during Word War II. To set against Newcastle, wecan enjoy reminiscences of post-war meetings fromlong-standing member Pauline Marstrand (p23).

The way things used to be provides a yardstick for Noel Jackson(p14), who argues that current citizen science is pretty sterilecompared with the experiences of people in biorecording groups BC(Before Computers). In contrast, Helen Roy asserts (p15) that this issimply not the case as far as the UK Ladybird Survey is concerned.

These days, assessing public engagement is a very sophisticated affair.In November, submissions will be made for the 2014 Research ExcellenceFramework (REF). About a year later, its results will determine howresearch funding from government will be distributed to UK tertiaryeducation institutions. For the first time, the REF will consider the impactof research in deciding whether to fund it. Peter McOwan andCharlotte Thorley (p19) weigh up the advantages and disadvantages ofthe way public engagement might fit into this framework.

Meanwhile, a report for the UK Energy Research Centre has clarifiedthe way public values should fit into future energy production anduse. Nick Pidgeon (p8) describes the values the public bring to theissue. Fully 88 per cent of respondents in the survey agreed that we inBritain need to change radically the way we produce and useenergy by 2050. But they will only be happy with the changes if theyaccord with their underlying values.

Public values are of course crucial to the public interest. Just how muchthe market is in the public interest when it comes to science is thesubject of the Spat (p10). It asks: Is the privatisation of science in thepublic interest? Does it reduce questions of social benefit to money andmoney alone? Alex Smith and Beverley Gibbs wrestle with the issue.

If the Spat raises many questions, two pieces offer answers. JayeshShah (p12) suggests that the GM debate could be put in properperspective if we focused instead on debating food security. AndCarl Miller (p13), commenting on Edward Snowden’s revelations ofseveral top-secret US and British government mass surveillanceprogrammes, also offers a way forward. He sees surveillance not as atechnological problem but as one of public trust in the oversight ofintelligence. His remedy is designed to restore that trust.

This is the last time the magazine will appear as a pdf. In future, itscontent will become part of the blog on the website, atwww.britishscienceassociation.org/blog

Finally, it is with great sadness that we print an obituary (p24) forDavid Dickson. Apart from putting his convictions into practice inbringing information about science and technology to developingcountries, he gave many years of thoughtful service to theAssociation. Greatly respected and held in genuine affection bycolleagues and friends alike, he will be sadly missed by all who wereprivileged to know him.


Coralie Young is the BritishScience Association’sCommunications Manager

[email protected]

Coralie Young tots up the contests

Points meanprizes

Festival fun for NewcastleFrom hacking to fracking, infectionto dissection, and wifi to sci-fi – theBritish Science Festival hassomething for everyone! The Festivalwill be coming to Newcastle-upon-Tyne from 7-12 September, with arange of talks, debates, workshops,exhibitions, performances and tours,all celebrating the sciences,technology, engineering and maths.Many events are free, although formost events we recommend thatyou book in advance, to avoiddisappointment, so please visitwww.britishsciencefestival.org, orring 08456 807 207. During theFestival, a ticket office will be openoutside the Northern Stage, onNewcastle University Campus.

Awards to celebrateColin Wilkinson, from Stockton-on-Tees, has been named by the BritishScience Association as our Volunteerof the Year. He has received the SirWalter Bodmer Award for Volunteersin recognition of his hard work anddedication in his role as Chair of theNorth East Branch and tireless worksupporting the Young People’sProgramme. Colin is also alongstanding member of the CRESTLocal Coordinator network, and wasinstrumental in establishing the BritishScience Association-led North EastScience Alliance (NESA) in 2007.

Colin’s background in industryprovides a rich source of ideas forstudent CREST projects, and branchactivities, and he remains achampion for the North East’sstrengths in engineering andtechnology.

The award is given annually by theBritish Science Association to adedicated volunteer or group ofvolunteers in recognition of their

great value and impact. Colin willattend the British Science Festival in Newcastle upon Tyne, his homepatch, this September to collect his award.

The British Science Association is also delighted that Dr Eric Albone,an Honorary Fellow, who has servedthe Association since 1986, has beenrecognised with an MBE in theQueen’s Birthday Honours. As well as his tireless work for theAssociation, Eric is co-founder andDirector of Clifton Scientific Trust. He received the Royal Society ofChemistry Award for ChemicalEducation in 1993.

For more information aboutvolunteering for the British Science Association, visit ourvolunteering pages.1

National Science +Engineering CompetitionThe National Science + EngineeringCompetition is now open, andinviting budding scientists andengineers to enter online by 31October 2013.

Young people, aged 11-18, canenter a science, technology,engineering or maths project bysubmitting a four-page writtenreport or by producing a five-minutefilm. The best projects will be invitedto the National Finals at The BigBang Fair in Birmingham in March2014, where they will showcase their work to over 65,000 people,and compete for over £50,000 worth of prizes. In addition, the top five online entries will beawarded prizes of £100.

Young people, parents andteachers can get more informationabout the competition by visitingwww.nsecuk.org.

BRITISH SCIENCEASSOCIATION NEWS

Battle of the ugly animalsThe National Science + EngineeringCompetition is working in conjunctionwith the Ugly Animals PreservationSociety to run a public vote for a new‘ugly’ mascot, and encourage youngpeople to develop an interest inconservation project work.

Teaming up with celebrity supporterssuch as Stephen Fry, the projectfeatures a range of well-known facespitching for their favourite aesthetically-challenged creature, as well as aselection of educational videos andresources to encourage young peopleto start science project work.

You can find out more about the vote,which closes on 11 September, and willculminate in an announcement of thewinning mascot at the British ScienceFestival, at www.nsecuk.org.

1 See www.britishscienceassociation.org/local-branches/join-our-team

Colin Wilkinson, fromStockton-on-Tees, hasbeen named by theBritish ScienceAssociation as ourVolunteer of the Year

GOVERNMENTNEWS

Karen Folkes listsrecent openings

Scienceengagement

is about opportunities

Karen Folkes is Deputy Head ofthe Science and Society team of the Department for Business,Innovation and Skills (BIS)

[email protected]


As a source of inspiration, the Bloodhound Super Sonic Car is a modern-day equivalent of the early steam locomotive: iconic, capturing thepublic interest. When it rolls out on the South African desert plain in twoyears’ time its stream-lined glamour and 1,000 mph land speed willinspire many to study science and engineering.

In fact, it is already doing that, withover 5,000 schools already engagedin the project and 500 Bloodhoundambassadors. One of those, JessHerbert, who was ‘bitten’ by theBloodhound at age 13, is now a RollsRoyce apprentice working on theproject. She met David Willetts in Julywhen he opened the new TechnicalFacility in Bristol, where he alsoannounced a further £1 millionfunding to enhance this project’salready impressive programme ofoutreach and inspiration for theengineers of tomorrow.1

Other opportunities Bloodhound is proving an effectivemorale-booster for UK science butit’s not the only one. We need totake other opportunities too.

There are many harder-to-tackle issueswhich don’t offer a smooth ride forscience and society and whichdemand extensive and often long-termdebate and discussion. This last quarterhas seen a number of such discussionswhich have been partly managed byBIS delivery partner Sciencewise.

GM debateUsing his Guest Directorship at theCheltenham Science Festival in June,David Willetts began what wehoped might be a fresh debate onthe GM issue. Organised by BBSRCand Sciencewise, it was clear thatthe participants valued the fact thatthe Minister was taking part andlistening to what they had to saywhilst also being prepared to putforward the government’s viewsabout the opportunities presentedby GM, in the context of the nowpublished Agri-tech strategy.2

The report of the ‘Farming for theFuture’ public discussion, including a link to a YouTube video of DavidWilletts’ introduction, is now on theSciencewise website.3

Mitochondrial DNAA similar process of reflection was setin train on techniques for managingmitochondrial DNA. Following theHFEA’s initial consultation, and publicdialogue, Jeremy Hunt agreed withtheir recommendation to moveforward with drafting regulations forconsultation to allow mitochondriareplacement techniques to be used inclinical treatment, subject to strictsafeguards. The debate is still ongoing.4

Bovine TBAnother current opportunity which isjust kicking off as part of theSciencewise public dialogueprogramme is to look at the spread ofbovine TB and the issues it raises forbadger culling and wildlife in general -the changing biodiversity that goeswith the nature of farming. Thedialogue is about the future directionof bovine TB policy and the outputswill be used alongside Defra’sconsultation that is taking place at themoment to inform the development ofthe bTB eradication strategy.5

PE triangleRegular readers of People & Sciencemay remember the ‘Triangle ofPublic Engagement’ developed bythe Science for All group a few yearsago.6 This showed a broad span ofpurposes in the whole PE landscape,from transmitting information,receiving views (for example, fromthe public), collaborating to co-create policies and opportunities,

and everything in between.

This is reflected in the opportunitieshere, from detailed dialogue workon sometimes vexed scientific issuesto charismatic, feel-good projectslike Bloodhound. But the thinking ofthe emerging Science and SocietyReview is that taking advantage ofopportunities in all corners of thetriangle and in between is the bestapproach to meet our vision andaims.7 Using those opportunities toensure we’re going beyond theusual suspects, and making the most of our partners’ expertise and linkages, will be the mainstay of our future approach.

1 See www.bloodhoundssc.com/news/science-minister-opens-new-hq-1000-mph-bloodhound

2 See www.gov.uk/government/publications/uk-agricultural-technologies-strategy

3 See www.sciencewise-erc.org.uk/cms/cheltenham-agri-tech-discussion-write-up/

4 See Shorts, this issue, p 7

5 See at https://consult.defra.gov.uk/farming/tb/

6 See http://scienceandsociety.bis.gov.uk/all/files/2010/10/PE-conversational-tool-Final-251010.pdf

7 See http://scienceandsociety.bis.gov.uk

The Bloodhound Project

SHORTSNEW

S IN

BRIEF

Consulting on education

Engineering in public? The Royal Academy ofEngineering is inviting applicationsfor Ingenious public engagementgrants by 30 September. Fundingof up to £30,000 is available forimaginative ideas to inspire publicengagement, stimulate engineersto share their stories, expertise andpassion, and raise awareness ofthe diversity, nature and impact of engineering.

www.raeng.org.uk/ingenious


Oceans, sparks and touristsThe Royal Society Winton Prizefor Science Books judges willannounce the shortlist inSeptember. The longlistincludes books on birds, cells,civilizations, Earth, air, leavesand life. The winner will beannounced on 25 November.

https://tinyurl.com/lkmbmxx

The content of the revised NationalCurriculum for maths and science inEngland for ages 5-14 (Key Stages 1-3) has been published by thegovernment.1 The revision aims toraise expectations for knowledgeand skills in maths and science, withthe inclusion of additional content.

Working scientificallyAn increased emphasis on “workingscientifically” in the primarycurriculum has been welcomed byAnnette Smith, Chief Executive of theAssociation for Science Education(ASE). ‘We’re pleased with thedevelopment of “How ScienceWorks” into “Working scientifically”which includes investigations anddiscussions about science,’ she toldPeople & Science.

As part of SCORE (the ScienceCommunity representingEducation), ASE has been workingwith the Department for Educationto revise the government’s first,heavily criticized draft programmesof study.

Wrong focus?Richard Needham, former Chair ofASE and ASE’s representative on theSCORE committee, told People &Science, ‘We’ve always suffered inscience education in having twodifferent purposes. One purpose isto create a scientifically-aware

society that can think rationally andweigh up evidence. The other is tosupply future scientists to feed theeconomy and to drive technology.

‘The last curriculum includedaspects of social awareness ofscience. That became criticized inthe press as “having a chat in thepub”,’ he continued. ‘That’s unfair…but this curriculum is swinging backthe other way… to promote abetter grasp of factual knowledge.

‘The implication [is] that oncestudents have acquired substantiveknowledge they are then in aposition to make more reasonedjudgements and the scientificreasoning will flow out of that - [but]I haven’t seen any evidence tosupport this idea.’

No aim for the future?Smith is disappointed by this focuson knowledge and an apparentlack of thought about whateducation is for: ‘Yes, childrenshould have [the core knowledge],but what do we want them to turnout like in the end?’ She describesthe aims of the draft programmes ofstudy for science as ‘not particularlywell thought through’.

Needham agrees: ‘The third aim… isthat children should be madeaware of “the uses and implicationsof science, today and for thefuture”, [but] I cannot find anything

within the proposed programme ofstudy… to do with the future.’

A further consultation on maths andscience for 14-16-year-olds will takeplace this autumn once the contentof GCSEs has been decided andanother consultation on assessmentand accountability closes on 11October.

1 http://tinyurl.com/k6y7h7m

The implication [is] thatonce students haveacquired substantiveknowledge they are thenin a position to make morereasoned judgements and the scientificreasoning will flow out of that - [but] I haven’tseen any evidence to support this idea

Wellcome for new Head of Engaging Science Lisa Jamieson has beenappointed as Head ofEngaging Science at theWellcome Trust to enhance theimpact of one of the UK’slargest public engagementfunding programmes. ‘I’m reallylooking forward to working withthe team on a wide variety ofinnovative projects,’ she said.

Passport to the Big Bang A scientific tourist trail of 10exhibition platforms at keypoints above the LargeHadron Collider (LHC) atGeneva, Switzerland, hasbeen launched by CERN, theEuropean Organization forNuclear Research. The LHC isthe world’s largest particleaccelerator and is used toexplore questions about theorigins of the universe.

https://tinyurl.com/oy5m992

SHORTS

Ethical sex selection?Keele University bioethicistshave concluded in a reportthat the legal ban on sexselection for social reasonsduring IVF is ‘unjustifiable’.Professor Stephen Wilkinson,now at Lancaster University,and Dr Eve Garrard, now at theUniversity of Manchester, arguethe practice would be unlikelyto lead to a population seximbalance in the UK.

https://tinyurl.com/pfk47q7

Public vote onheavenly names Over 450,000 votes were cast bythe public to help select namesfor the fourth and fifth moons ofPluto. Kerberos and Styx havebeen officially recognized bythe International AstronomicalUnion. Vulcan was the public’sfirst choice but had alreadybeen used for a hypotheticalplanet between Mercury andthe Sun.

https://tinyurl.com/kch8xpu

Dr Joanna Carpenter is the Shorts Editor ofPeople & [email protected]

Open DataFirst findings of a Wellcome Trustsurvey of attitudes to science andmedicine include that those scoringhighly on a science quiz havegreater trust in recommendedvaccinations. The data set is freelyavailable for researchers toanalyse. ‘We would be genuinelydelighted,’ Hilary Leevers, Head ofEducation and Learning atWellcome, told People & Science.

http://ukdataservice.ac.uk/

Women in STEM: parliamentary enquiryThe House of Commons SelectCommittee on Science andTechnology has launched anenquiry into the leaky pipeline of the loss of women at each stage of academic STEM careers. Written submissions are invited online by noon on 3 September.

https://tinyurl.com/pm2lp8y

Mitochondrial replacementIn an article in Nature,1 anAmerican bioethicist has criticizedthe UK’s decision to trialmitochondrial replacementtechniques as ‘premature and ill-conceived’. In June, theDepartment of Health announced2

it would draft regulations for publicconsultation later this year.

Marcy Darnovsky, executivedirector of the Center for Geneticsand Society in Berkeley, California,argues that the UK’s decisionoverturns an internationalconsensus against humangermline modification.

As an example, she cites Article 13of the Council of EuropeConvention on Human Rights andBiomedicine3 (which the UK hasnot signed), which states: Anintervention seeking to modify thehuman genome may only beundertaken for preventive,diagnostic or therapeuticpurposes and only if its aim is notto introduce any modification inthe genome of any descendants.

‘There has been no internationaldiscussion of this among those whohave signed the treaty, or betweenthem and the UK,’ Darnovsky says.‘This really would be a unilateralmove on the part of the UK.’

Human genome?Mitochondria are self-contained

parts of human cells that produceenergy for the cell. They havetheir own DNA (mtDNA) that isdistinct from nuclear DNA (nDNA).Genetic information for character-istics such as hair colour is innDNA, inherited from bothparents. However, only themother’s mtDNA is passed on to achild, via the egg. Mitochondrialreplacement involves transferringnDNA from a mother’s egg orembryo to a donor egg or embryothat has had its nDNA removed.

Supporters of the move argue thatmitochondrial DNA should not beconsidered part of the humangenome. The Nuffield Council onBioethics published an ethicalreview of techniques to preventmtDNA disorders in June 2012,4 inwhich it noted that the Council ofEurope Convention defines beinggenetically identical to anotherhuman being as sharing the samenuclear DNA, regardless ofdifferences in mtDNA.

Safety‘It’s just semantics as far as I’mconcerned,’ Joanna Poulton,Professor and Hon Consultant inMitochondrial Genetics at theJohn Radcliffe Hospital in Oxford,told People & Science. ‘The issueis: is it going to be safe, and is itgoing to be effective in doingwhat it set out to do?’ she

continued. ‘We still don’t reallyknow very much about howmitochondria function in earlyembryos, in stem cells indeed, andthere are some strange results outthere… That’s a major safety issue,with lots of unknowns.’

Despite this, Poulton is pleased thathuman trials may take place in theUK. ‘I think that it has to getlicensed in the UK reasonably soon,because if it’s not done in the UK,someone will go and do it in Koreaor Russia where there’s noregulation and we’ll never knowwhat the results were. [That’s] thelast thing we want to happen.’

1 www.nature.com/news/a-slippery-slope-to-human-germline-modification-1.13358

2 www.gov.uk/government/news/innovative-genetic-treatment-to-prevent-mitochondrial-disease

3 http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/en/Treaties/Html/164.htm

4 www.nuffieldbioethics.org/mitochondrial-dna-disorders

The issue is: is it going tobe safe, and is it goingto be effective in doingwhat it set out to do?


COVERSTORY


Nick Pidgeon has surveyedthe British public

Energy policy has become one of the most fraught politicaldebates in Britain today – whether we consider proposalsfor new nuclear power, local controversies over wind farmsor fracking for unconventional gas, or the introduction of‘smart meters’ to monitor energy use in our homes.

Public values underlying future energyproduction and use

Much of our energyinfrastructure is also ageingand this, coupled with theneed to meet climate changetargets, ensure the futuresecurity of supply, and toaddress fuel poverty, meansthat major changes to thesystems for producing andusing energy are inevitable.

New study of attitudesIn a major 30-month study forthe UK Energy Research Centre,we explored the issue of publicviews of energy system change.Researching public views isimportant because it helps usunderstand points of particularresistance to change and thereasons for this. It also throwslight on where newopportunities to change mightlie, and how future publicdialogue about energy systemsmight be taken forward.

The project involveddeliberative workshops in sixlocations across Britain followedby a major representativeonline survey1 (n=2,441)conducted by us for IpsosMori.A particularly innovative part of the research was use of theonline MY2050 tool2 developedby the Department for Energyand Climate Change as an aidto prompt participants to thinkabout some of the challengesand tradeoffs of changing theenergy system as a whole.

Renewables paramountThe findings show that fully 88per cent of respondents agreethat we in Britain need tochange radically the way weproduce and use energy by2050. The British public views a move away from fossil fuelreliance and a shift torenewable forms of energyproduction as paramount forlong-term energy policy.Simultaneously the publicclearly indicate a desire todevelop technology andinfrastructures to supportchanges in lifestyles, with an overall goal of improvingenergy efficiency andachieving reductions in energy demand.

The research also reveals whatunderlies this public vision forfuture energy pathways: thevalues and principles whichpublics draw on to form theirviews and preferences whenengaging with energy systemchange. The value system weidentified provides a basis forunderstanding why publics likeor don’t like certain energysystem aspects and processes,and why uncertainty mightemerge. Furthermore, itprovides a basis for creatingpolicies that are responsive tothe core concerns that publicshave with regards to futureenergy pathways.


Underlying valuesPublic values for energy systemchange include efficiency andavoiding waste; protection ofnature and the environment;ensuring security through reliability,affordability, availability and safetyof energy services; being mindful ofindividual autonomy and freedoms;social justice, fairness andtransparency; as well as thinking interms of long-term trajectories,ensuring changes representimprovement and consideringimplications for quality of life.

An important conclusion to draw isthat acceptability of any particularaspect of energy systemtransformations will, in part, bedependent upon how well it fits intothe value system. Critical to thisargument is the notion that publicperspectives are not abouttechnology alone, they are aboutwhat the technology symbolisesand represents.

For example, the research showsthat people are ambivalent about proposals for fitting carbondioxide capture technologies tofossil-fuelled power generation andthen storing the carbon in depletedoil fields (a technique known ascarbon capture and storage, orCCS). Although they accept that a novel technology such as thiswould be one way of helping toclean up electricity generation andthereby combat one of the causesof climate change, they also view it as a ‘non-transition’: that is, theyfeel that CCS only prolongs analready unsustainable reliance on a fossil fuel-based system and thereby fails to address thelong-term need for a change to a cleaner, fairer energy system.

The research also highlighted thefact that people do not view thecurrent energy markets as effectivemechanisms for delivery oftransitions in ways commensuratewith their values, and nor do peopletrust either energy companies or the government with respect tofuture system changes. Overcomingboth of these barriers may ultimatelyprove the most important issues

to address if we are to achieve a radical change to the UK’senergy system.

When solar is preferred To illustrate, our findings show thatthere is a strong public preferencefor solar energy in the supply-side of our energy system (85 per centwere found to be favourabletowards solar energy). The researchalso finds that solar energy isparticularly associated with being‘renewable’ ‘fair’, ‘just’, ‘clean’,safe and secure, as well asdelivering perceived benefits interms of affordability. Accordingly,we assert that if solar power weredeployed and developed in waysno longer congruent with thesevalues, it would not then fit with thepublic preference for solar energy.

For example, we might imagine asolar energy development supplyingthe UK but residing in North Africabeing revealed as causing localenvironmental contamination andland-use territorial disputes. Thisincarnation of solar would not fit thepublic preference for this form ofenergy provision, not because it isno longer renewable but becausein this instance it would no longerbe seen as ‘fair’, ‘just’ or ‘clean’. As such, the public attachimportance to the inclusion ofrenewable, clean, fair and justelements in future energy systems,not solar energy technology per se.

Shared responsibility Our findings further show that theBritish public do not locateresponsibility for the enactment anddelivery of energy system changewith any one group. Indeed theyperceive responsibilities forindividuals, industry (for example,energy companies) andgovernment, although it is the latter that was seen as ultimately responsible.

The public perceive thegovernment’s role to be developingan overall vision to work towards.This includes creating the policiesand structures needed toencourage change and beingclear about the available options.

On the other hand, the publicperceives that government issending mixed signals in terms of itscommitment to a trajectory whichwould be in line with the valuesabove. The public also questionswhether it is even taking its ownpolicies seriously (for example,climate change targets).

The recent story about tax breaksfor shale gas will further confoundthe perceived incongruence ingovernment’s messaging. It willincrease public suspicion about itscommitment to bring about positivechange for a more sustainablefuture in line with public values forenergy system change – an energyfuture that most believe should notbe predicated on fossil fuel use.

1 The discussed research is part of the UK EnergyResearch Centre project ‘Transforming the UKEnergy System: Public Values, Attitudes andAcceptability’. The full report can bedownloaded from this website:http://www.ukerc.ac.uk/support/Transforming+the+UK+Energy+System

2 See http://my2050.decc.gov.uk/

Nick Pidgeon is Professorof Psychology at theUniversity of [email protected]

Favourability towards energysources for electricity generation

SPAT

Dear Alex,

I suspect the first benefit peoplewould think of that privatisedscience offers is the increasedamount of money that’s madeavailable to do science with.

In 2010 the Office for NationalStatistics revealed that of all theUK’s scientific R&D expenditure,almost two-thirds came from privateindustry – a big addition to theinvestment available from anincreasingly empty public purse.That most of the results of this R&Dare kept private until they can bemade public through commercialproducts is the financial incentivethat releases upwards of £16bninvestment. So, on the basis thatmore scientific research takes placeand much of it eventually becomespublic through the market, privati-sation can be in the public interest.

However, I’m drawing something ofa straw man here. The public-private boundary is actually veryporous. For example, a couple ofyears ago GlaxoSmithKline openedup its Tres Cantos research campusin Spain to a range of organisationsto collaborate on big challengessuch as malaria and drug-resistantTB. Money has been releasedthrough the foundation, previously-private data has been sharedwidely and new joint projectsstarted with an aim to producedrugs for a neglected disease.

Isn’t that in the public interest?

Yours, Beverley

Dear Beverley,

Your opening salvo is to suggestthat the public interest is bestserved by a ‘privatised science’capable of promoting increasedbusiness investment in R&D. Theresults of such research then‘become public’ when they arecommercialised and taken tomarket. You rely on a seductivelogic that presents as self-evidentthe ‘benign’ promise of the marketto provide financial incentives (theprofit motive) that encourageprivate businesses andcorporations to invest in scientificresearch. But how comfortableshould we, as a wider public, bewith this idea?

All debates must begin with adefinition of terms. I would want to challenge any argument thatequates – no matter how implicitly– publics with markets. It is difficultto excite the public imaginationabout science with an argumentthat foregrounds questions offunding and profit to the exclusionof other considerations, includingthose that define the socialbenefits of science in less utilitarian terms.

Market values reinforce andreward our worst habits andinstincts, as individuals and asconsumers. They are also hostile to the public values of science,which embody practices ofcollaboration and conversation.These are poorly served by theprivatisation of science, which is most certainly not in the public interest.

Yours, Alex

Dear Alex,

Your conflation of funding and profitis interesting. I previously mentionedthe leverage that is commonlysought between investment andprofit in the private sector. However,these are not concepts that livesolely in commerce.

Scientific research in universities –perhaps the classic archetype ofpublic science – is not quite asopen as I feel you imply.

Research is frequently storedbehind expensive paywalls andintellectual property rights regimesare common in academia. Both ofthese act to make supposedlypublic science more private. So,where is our boundary?

Clearly, some markets work betterthan others in realising the publicinterest and we have to considerpublic value-for-money as animportant element, albeit difficultto measure in the research context.However, ‘the public interest’ is initself a very seductive term,suggestive of a pre-existing set ofpriorities that we all agree upon,making it straightforward to decidewhether this is realised mosteffectively through public orprivate means.

The troublesome path manytechnologies take towards societyindicates different, competing,evolving public interests. In lowcarbon energy for example – whenand how does a wider sense of thepublic good trump the local needsand preferences of hostcommunities?

Yours, Beverley


Is the privatisation of sciencein the public interest?Beverley Gibbs and Alex Smith disagree


Dear Beverley,

Defining, and disposing of, thepublic interest should not beanything other than a messy,debatable business, demandinghard intelligence from aneducated citizenry capable ofconceiving of interests other thanmaximising profit. That is why, overthe centuries, a variety ofinstitutions – including Parliamentand the media – have evolved sothat divergent publics can engagewith one another and debatelarger questions of what constitutestheir common, shared interests.

This is the promise of a publicscience, which places emphasis onthe wider obligations of science topublics conceived as having larger,non-economic (that is, non-consumer) interests at stake, onquestions of inequality, justice andthe environment. It is right thatadvocates of a privatised sciencealso contribute to debates overwhat constitutes the public good.

But Parliament and otherinstitutions should never abdicateto the market their responsibility totake these important questionsseriously. After all, your finalquestion – about if and whenlarger ideas of the public goodshould trump local needs andpreferences – is exactly the kindthat cannot be answered in themarketplace alone. It can onlyever be answered messily, throughdebate and dialogue betweenthose committed to the making ofa public science.

Yours, Alex

Dear Alex,

Conducting some scientific researchwithin market mechanisms does nothave to stand in opposition to aneffective public sphere. Indeed, Iwould suggest that the effectiveness ofpublic debate among all institutions islimited until we have an idea of whata scientific or technologicaldevelopment looks like in its fullness –who owns it, how it will beimplemented, who profits, who willbenefit and who will lose out.

The much drawn-upon debates aboutgenetically modified food in the UKare rich in these kinds of arguments, asare many of the concerns around low-carbon energy technologies. To try topublicly debate the nature of scienceand technology without recognising itscommercial features is having only halfthe conversation.

In recognising the value of thesedebates I am of courseacknowledging the trade-off I startedwith – that something public is lostwhen private funding is leveraged.However, instead of dismissing this asentirely undesirable, my position is thatthe value offered to society is toogreat to turn away from.

Instead, let’s discuss where the public-private boundary should be, howinnovation can be governed tomaximise social benefit and how toensure and protect the valueachieved from the limited publicfunding available.

Yours, Beverley

Dear Beverley,

I welcome your belatedrecognition of a role for publicfunding in science. Indeed, youappear to go further and suggestthat the market should only fund‘some’ scientific research.

But you conclude with thecontradictory point that just limitedpublic funding is available, againstwhich private funding mustpresumably be ‘leveraged’. Thisconfusion is a consequence of yourwider argument in favour of theprivatisation of science, the logic ofwhich seeks to side-line debate overthe social benefits of science whilesanctioning cuts in public funding infavour of the commercialexploitation of scientific andtechnological advances.

Your argument clearlydemonstrates that the privatisationof science is not in the publicinterest for a very simple reason: itreduces all such questions to oneof money and money alone. Butscience is bigger than this, asystem of knowledge that promisesmuch more than just thedevelopment of new technologies.

Science offers a radical way of‘seeing’ the world, of imaginingand apprehending it. This is anintellectual inheritance thatbelongs to all of us. It should beused to benefit the widest possiblepublics we can conceive. Insteadof more privatisation and theerosion of the public sphere, whatwe need today is a bold andunequivocal reaffirmation of publicscience – science pursued, withpublic money, in the broadestpossible public interest.

Yours, Alex

Dr Alex Smith is Senior LeverhulmeResearch Fellow in Sociology atWarwick University as well as anAdjunct Assistant Professor in Sociology in Kansas University

[email protected]

Beverley Gibbs is a doctoralresearcher at the University ofNottingham, working closely with the multidisciplinary ‘Making SciencePublic’ Leverhulme programme

[email protected]

We should debatefood security, not GM Jayesh Shah argues for a broader view


Jayesh Shah is a ResearchManager at Ipsos [email protected]

Clouding publicunderstandingThis summer I wrote a blog postabout the upcoming Public Attitudesto Science (PAS) 2014 study that IpsosMORI is conducting, and how itcontributes to the GM debate.1 GMcrops are the hardy perennials ofscience stories. They emerge eachyear without fail, either saying thatGM crops are the only option andshould be embraced, or that theyare dangerous and should bebanned. This year, coverage of a speech by the UK EnvironmentSecretary Owen Paterson restartedthe same debate.

These GM stories are important, butthey can serve to cloud the public’sunderstanding of the bigger issue.As the world’s population hits 9billion by 2050, food prices will riseunless something is done. The 2008spike in food prices caused riots in36 countries. The UK can’t hide fromthis – we import 40 per cent of ourfood and this proportion is set toincrease. Mr Paterson’s speechdealt with these issues, but as hewas talking about GM, the mediafocused on this and largely ignoredthe global food security problem.This is equivalent to all media stories on climate change talkingexclusively about the pros and cons of geosequestration, withoutmentioning ‘climate change’.

Public neutral The media tends to inflate thesalience of GM. When Ipsos MORIasks people unprompted every

month what the most importantissues facing the country are, GMnever comes up. Media articles oftensuggest there is widespread fearabout GM crops among the public,but this is questionable. Surveys likePAS 2011 have tended to show thatpeople are largely neutral orundecided on the topic, while arecent British Science Associationsurvey showed that concern haddeclined over the last decade.2

Moreover, media coverage of GMcrops has not created an informedpublic debate. Many people stillhave little idea of what ‘geneticallymodified’ actually means. The recentWellcome Trust Monitor survey foundthat only a third of adults think theyhave a good understanding of theterm. Eight per cent of adults havenever heard of it.3 We recently testedout some questions for the PAS 2014survey, and some of the people weasked were confusing ‘geneticallymodified’ with ‘organic’, of all things.

To sum up, while there is publicconcern over GM crops, this is oftena very normal fear of the unknown,and concerns only tend to emergeafter prompting people on a topicthey know little about.

Food securityIf we are to move the public awayfrom a simplified debate about thepros and cons of GM crops, andtowards an informed debate onglobal food security, we will need toestablish the public’s views on thelatter. While there has been somesurvey research on this before,4 PAS

2014 hopes to build a more detailedpicture. Do people hold contradictoryviews on GM and food security? Dothey even see food security as ascience issue, or a purely economicone? Our new survey questions willexplore these issues.

Of course, the PAS survey results justgive us the foundations for a publicdebate on global food security. Weneed further qualitative research anddialogue on global food securitybefore we can fully understand thepublic’s informed views on this topic.Before then, I’ll be applauding thestories that show the shades of grey,and the important wider context,surrounding the GM debate.

1 http://www.britishscienceassociation.org/blog/gm-are-people-informed-or-do-they-just-feel-informed

2 A recent YouGov poll did find a relatively highlevel of opposition, but asked a very specificquestion, which prompted respondents on thepotential benefits and harmful effects of GMcrops.

3 http://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/publications/1567/Wellcome-Trust-Monitor-Wave-2.aspx

4 http://www.foodsecurity.ac.uk/assets/pdfs/gfs-survey-public-attitudes.pdf?

I have a request. Could everyone please stop writing news storiesthat are solely for or against genetically modified (GM) crops?Instead, could you all write a bit more about global food securityand the many technologies – including GM – that couldpotentially ward off a global food crisis? Thanks in advance.

The media tends toinflate the salience ofGM. When Ipsos MORIasks people unpromptedevery month what themost important issuesfacing the country are,GM never comes up


Carl Miller is the foundingresearch director of the Centrefor the Analysis of Social Mediaat Demos

[email protected]

There are of course costs and risks tosurveillance juries. They would need to besupported by a secretariat, by experts andclerks. They would need to be protectedfrom intimidation and undue influence. Theintelligence agencies themselves wouldneed to be protected from unethical jurors.

However, many of these importantproblems – from jury intimidation toleaking official secrets – are ones we havefaced before, and ones we haveresponses and laws to deal with. Everygeneration re-interrogates questions ofdemocracy and the relationship betweengovernors and the governed in the light oftheir own times and challenges. As thisgeneration does the same it should notshy away from bold, even radical,solutions to the profound problems of trustand confidence that it faces.

1 ‘We need to build a much closer relationship betweengovernment, the private sector and the public when itcomes to national security’, Cabinet Office, A StrongBritain in an Age of Uncertainty: The National SecurityStrategy, Oct 2010,www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/sites/default/files/resources/nationalsecurity-strategy.pdf

2 http://www.ipsos-mori.com/Assets/Docs/Polls/Veracity2011.pdf

3 http://www.icpr.org.uk/media/10381/Juries%20MOJ%20report.pdf

In the UK, we use a network of different bodies to oversee intelligence.Commissioners, Parliamentarians, ministers and the agenciesthemselves are all involved at different times, to ensure that the stepsthat are taken to protect society are proportionate and necessary.

Surveillance juries would restore public trust, argues Carl Miller

These vital principles – proportionalityand necessity – are intended toguarantee public confidence. It iswidely recognised, including inBritain’s National Security Strategy,that serious damage to securityoccurs when the state’s efforts are not accepted or trusted.1 Our systemof oversight needs not only to ensuresurveillance is legitimate, but alsocredibly assure the public that it isactually and effectively ensuringsurveillance is legitimate.

Edward Snowden, an Americanformer technical contractor for theUnited States National SecurityAgency and former employee of theCentral Intelligence Agency, leakeddetails of several top-secret US andBritish government mass surveillanceprogrammes to the press. These –PRISM in the US and TEMPORA in theUK – have exposed a very seriousproblem at the heart of this system.The simple fact is that many of thesteps taken to protect society that hehas revealed have been completelylegal, yet do not enjoy this crucialpublic confidence. This problem issystemic: not one of a few badapples or over-zealous operatives. Sowhere has the system gone wrong?

Little public confidenceThe problem is not one of technicalfunctionality – how well the systemworks – but about public trust andconfidence. The way we overseeintelligence suffers from a widerproblem that we are experiencing as

a society: a crisis of institutionallegitimacy. Public trust is something that public bodies in general, includingthose involved in intelligence oversight,increasingly lack. Ipsos MORI’s 2011‘veracity index’ found that, onaverage, 61 per cent of the public trust the police, less than half trust civil servants, and just 19 per cent trust government ministers.2

Yet since the last major law – theRegulation of Investigatory Powers Act –was passed over a dozen years ago, theoversight of intelligence has been on along technocratic drift, becoming less apublic and more an official concern. Atthe same time as trust in official bodiesdeclined, the responsibility for holdingthe security services to account hasbecome more a matter for them.

Surveillance juriesWe need to find new ways of makingthe public confident that surveillance isproperly overseen. So here’s an idea.Let’s have ‘surveillance juries’, involvingthe public directly in the process.

Juries are consistently shown as one ofthe most trusted of all publicinstitutions.3 In the justice system, theyare essential purely because there areno special qualifying criteria: anyonecould be called. The principles that sitat the heart of the surveillance system– proportionality and necessity – aresimilar to those related to innocenceand guilt. They are not technocraticissues, but rather fine balancing actsover which a body representingsociety should sit in judgment.

The Snowden revelations

The way we overseeintelligence suffers froma wider problem that weare experiencing as asociety: a crisis ofinstitutional legitimacy

TWOVIEWS

Citizen science: proper science?Noel Jackson and Helen Roy differ

Noel Jackson has doubts

PAGE 14 PEOPLE&SCIENCE March 2013

Citizen Science seems to be flavour of the month, but I question its novelty, the depth of its engagement and its use to science as a whole.

Citizen science projects seem to fall into two types; those whichcrowd source data and thosewhich require identification in thefield. I take it on trust that projectslike Galaxy Zoo are important, butremain more sceptical ofbiorecording projects. I have toadmit that I am addicted toidentifying animals and so love thechallenges posed by Instant Wild.

1

However, judging by the commentsposted by other contributors, thegeneral quality of identifications islow and the value of the project to science must be very limited indeed.

Sterile interactionBC (Before Computers), there werelots of local natural history societiesand specialist recording groups.Data transfer was slower as peopleexchanged letters and plotting wasslower as maps were marked byhand. But there was more personalinteraction, as voucher specimenswere checked by a recorder. Thenearest to this in Citizen Science isthe UK Ladybird Survey, whereobservers submit pictures of theirfinds. It’s a pretty sterile form ofinteraction compared with theapprenticeship, peer review andtransfer of enthusiasm one receivedwhen part of a recording group.

I am yet to see anything involvinginvestigation by experiment inCitizen Science. I can see that thedata collected might be analysedcentrally, but this reduces the person

making the records to the role of anunpaid field assistant and certainlydoesn’t make them a scientist.

Batty projectThis is particularly the case wherethe project uses some form ofmechanical device to identify thetarget species. An example of this isthe Bat App where people areinvited use their mobile phones torecord bats in flight. The phone logslocation by GPS and matches theinput to a database of bat sound.The problem is that bat sound is notusually a form of communicationbut a form of navigation, so it asmuch dependent on habitat andprey as it is on the species of bat.

Identification of bats from theirecholocation is a complex art,much harder than learning birdsong. BatApp surveys in Durham,where the bat fauna has been wellrecorded since the early eighties,suggested that Leisler’s Bat was thecommonest species in some areas.Unfortunately it is not known tobreed north of Wakefield.

It cannot be right to suggest thatpeople are doing something usefulby wandering around doing asurvey where the results are likely tobe wrong.

Big bangModern technology has thepotential to make fantasticcontributions to some areas ofscience. People I work with arelooking at phone add-ons thatanalyse genes, opening upenormous areas of biology forwidespread exploration. Oneproject which I thought reallyproved the worth of Citizen Science

was the AshTag project, whichtracked a potentially landscape-changing tree disease across EastAnglia. However, it was not thetechnology that was impressive butthe way it was supported byscientists and media specialists, sothat the data was immediatelyused to highlight the problem to thegeneral public. Contributors sawthe value of their work very quickly.

Citizen science has great potentialbut I don’t think project organizershave gone far enough in engagingwith their publics. Too many appsare like computer games andhence seem trivial.

Even with all my reservations aboutCitizen Science, I can’t help but seethe potential it has to offer ifharnessed properly. All we haveseen so far is the fizzing of the bluetouch paper. I look forward to thebig bang that is yet to come.

1 http://tinyurl.com/7bxhdkc

Noel Jackson is a keen amateur naturalist and is a founder-member ofDurham Bat Group. He iscurrently head of educationat the International Centrefor Life, [email protected]

Identification of batsfrom their echolocationis a complex art, muchharder than learningbird song

Recording ladybirds is inspiring, asserts Helen Roy

People have been recordingwildlife in Britain for hundreds ofyears. By simply noting theoccurrence of a species on agiven date and locality, peoplehave provided information which isproving invaluable forunderstanding changes in theBritish flora and fauna.

Biological recording is undoubtedlyone of the earliest examples ofcitizen science. In some guisesbiological recording could betermed ‘mass participation citizenscience’, whereby volunteerscontribute data to a scheme ledby professional scientists. In manycases, however, biologicalrecording involves volunteers in allaspects of the scheme from thecontribution to the compilation,analysis and interpretation ofbiodiversity observations. There isno doubt that the role ofvolunteers is pivotal in ensuring thelegacy of these large-scale andlong-term datasets.

The UK Ladybird Survey, one of thesevolunteer recording schemes, startedlife in 1968 as the CoccinellidaeRecording Scheme. Tens of thousandsof people have now contributedrecords – simply inspirational.

Role of the individual There is no doubt that internettechnology has revolutionisedcitizen science and increasedparticipation beyond theimagination of early pioneers. Itcould be argued that, with thisnumber of contributors, the role ofthe individual and their sense ofcontributing to real science mightbe lost. I do not believe this to bethe case for ladybird recording(and indeed many other citizenscience initiatives) in the UK.

One of the many appealingaspects of successful massparticipation citizen science is thatpeople can very easily getinvolved without having to commit

much time or effort but with theopportunities to progress and learnalong the way.

From one submission to researchAn individual may begin bysubmitting one ladybird record –perhaps of a particular ladybird intheir garden. This may beaccompanied by a photograph ofthe ladybird. The contributor will thenbe notified as to whether or not theiridentification was correct (by me orone of the other UK Ladybird Surveyvolunteers) and encouraged tosubmit further sightings.

Some people will submit furtherrecords and others will not. Somewill submit hundreds, and perhapsextend their recording tomonitoring a specific locality on a regular basis. Others will get soinvolved that they undertakeresearch projects quite literally ontheir kitchen table – the UKLadybird Survey invites people tostudy parasites of ladybirds and,perhaps, amazingly some peopleare willing to do so!

Traditional engagementessentialIt is critical that peoplecontributing to citizen scienceinitiatives are provided withfeedback and the opportunity toget deeply involved in biologicalrecording – not just of ladybirds.But every record counts and thesubmission of just one ladybirdrecord will make a difference tothe UK Ladybird Survey andhopefully to the participant too.

New technologies arerevolutionising biological recordingbut they are just one of manycomponents that contribute to the success of citizen science.Traditional methods of engagementare essential to ensure thesustainability and progression of a citizen science initiative.

Current resourcesThe UK Ladybird Survey has justlaunched a new smartphone appcalled iRecord Ladybirds. Therehave already been thousands ofdownloads and a surge in ladybirdrecords. Each and everycontributor will receiveconfirmation and feedback ontheir observation.

The UK Ladybird Survey team hasalso published the revised editionof the Naturalist HandbookLadybirds.1 First published in 1989,this book placed emphasis onequipping all enthusiasts with therelevant techniques for studyingladybirds. The revised edition alsoencourages those who want toget more involved to contribute toincreasing our understanding ofladybird ecology, whether in aprofessional research laboratory oron the kitchen table. That is whatthe UK Ladybird Survey is all about– real science for everyone.

1 HE Roy, PMJ Brown, RF Comont, RL Poland and JJ Sloggett (2013), Ladybirds (Naturalists’Handbook 10). Revised from Majerus andKearns (1989)

Dr Helen Roy is head ofZoology at the BiologicalRecords Centre (BRC), partof the Centre for Ecology & Hydrology which hostsmore than 70 of the UK’s volunteer-led wildlife record-ing schemes and societies.She tweets as @UKLadybirds

[email protected] http://www.ceh.ac.uk/staffwebpages/drhelenroy.html

http://www.ladybird-survey.org

There is no doubt thatinternet technology hasrevolutionised citizen scienceand increased participationbeyond the imagination ofearly pioneers

PAGE 15 PEOPLE&SCIENCE March 2013

EXCHANGE

Trouble ahead Martyn Thomas foresees problems

Digital by Default

Dr Martyn Thomas is a Vice-President of the RoyalAcademy of [email protected]


In November 2012, the government published itsdigital strategy, setting out how it would becomedigital by default. That’s its aim for public services,whether we’re applying for an apprenticeship or a student loan, finding out more about a property,transferring the ownership of a car, or managingour tax affairs - and a whole lot more. Here, MartynThomas, William Heath and Kevin Seller lay out their hopes and fears for the strategy.

To make Digital by Default work,government services need to buildin strong security. There are someworrying signs of trouble ahead.

Website qualityThe quality of current governmentwebsites is variable. DVLA, forexample, seems to work well with awide variety of software, whereassomeone trying to claim DisabilityLiving Allowance for a child, online, isconfronted by a page that explains

The service was designed to work withthe following operating systems andbrowsers. Many of these are no longeravailable…

You are likely to have problems if youuse Internet Explorer 7, 8, 9 and 10,Windows Vista or a smartphone..

If you use browsers not listed below,including Chrome, Safari or Firefox,the service [may] not display all thequestions you need to answer. Youmay wish to claim in another way.

In other words, to apply for this benefitonline you must have a computer thatis several years old and that has not

been updated to fix many knownsecurity problems, contrary to allsensible cybersecurity advice. Thewebsite is not fit for purpose.

Security There must be a secure way for users ofservices to identify themselves online.The Government Digital Service haspublished a Good Practice Guide onIdentity Proofing and Verification (IPV)that lives up to its name but cannot getround the dilemma that usability andsecurity pull in opposite directions. Ifyou need to be very sure that an on-line user is the person they claim to be,then you need to carry out a range ofchecks that may make the servicedifficult to use.

Exposure or corruption of sensitivepersonal data may risk serious injury toone person and only be inconvenient toanother. Should the service bedesigned to satisfy the highest risks,even if that means using IPV proceduresthat are expensive, highly inconvenientfor most citizens and reduce the take-up of the digital service? Testing alonecan never guarantee security. How can

citizens be certain that their sensitivedata is secure?

‘Anonymised’ data Politicians and civil servants oftensuggest that it is safe to makepersonal data that departments havecollected available to others once ithas been anonymised. This is at bestnaïve and at worst fraudulent.

If the ‘anonymous’ data containsenough information about anindividual for it to be usefulcommercially or for research, then itwill often be possible to re-identify theindividual by comparing the datawith other available datasets.

So Digital by Default is a greataspiration but delivering it is far harderthan it may appear, and the mostlikely outcome is a flawedimplementation followed by verydamaging security breaches.

We think that the Post Office shouldplay a central role in helping thegovernment deliver its Digital byDefault agenda.

More than nine out of ten people inthe UK population live within one mileof a Post Office, and almost 20 millioncustomers visit a branch every week.Our network, at around 11,800branches, is larger than the banksand building societies combined.

The Post Office already plays a crucialrole in providing the public with accessto key services and supportinggovernment to reduce the cost ofdelivering services. We handle, forexample, 1.4 billion transactions thatinclude managing nearly three millionpassport applications, 20 millionmotoring service transactions and threemillion Post Office Card Accounts.

Support for customersOne of the key challenges is to ensurethat the 16 million who are not online,

or lack the confidence or skills totransact online, are not left behind.Many of these people are some of themost vulnerable members of society,with complex needs and high levels ofdependency on government support.They are intensive users of publicservices. The extensive Post Officebranch network and the trust peopleplace in it offer the opportunity tosupport all these people to ensureuniversal access to services.

We can help these people access theservice they require by providing in-branch assistance, for examplethrough practical advice andassistance. We can support thoseelements of a transaction that cannotbe completed on-line, for examplehigh-level identity verification andassurance. We can also removepaper from the system by convertingface-to-face transactions into digitalform, and sharing directly withgovernment back office.

Ongoing assessmentAfter the transaction is completed, thePost Office has the potential to assessthe support these customers need toaccess the services independently thenext time. The Post Office, for example,is already able to signpost customersto their nearest free or low-costinternet access and training.

The Post Office is a Founder Partner ofGo ON UK, the UK’s Digital SkillsAlliance, chaired by Baroness Lane-Fox. Its purpose is to inspire andsupport individuals and organisationsthat want to share their digital skills withothers. And so the Post Office is ideallyplaced, working alongside ourpartners, to ensure our customers getthe help they need to use governmentdigital services independently.

The Post Office can deliver It’s ideally placed, argues Kevin Seller

Personal security is possible William Heath explains how


Kevin Seller is head ofgovernment services of PostOffice [email protected]

One route the government haschosen for future ID assurance isMydex, a social enterprisecommunity interest companybased in the Young Foundation.Mydex provides personallyencrypted online data stores free to individuals, and a technical andlegal trust framework within whichindividuals can acquire andredeploy all sorts of personal data.

Crucially, this includes proofs toclaims, such as having a drivinglicence, paying council tax at aspecific address, having a passport or bank account.

This means that individuals canacquire evidence of relationships andtrustworthiness as a normal part ofengaging in online life. They can thensign on to services securely, receivestructured data of all sorts at no cost,and personalise services withoutcompromising privacy.

Midata and MydexID assurance requires that individualspresent themselves for online public

services with an identity token orproof provided by a third party suchas Mydex. The BIS Midata policy -backed by the new Enterprise ReformAct 2013 - requires that regulatedindustries such as banks, phonecompanies or utilities be ready togive individuals their customer databack in a common structured format.

Of course, a business can’t be sureit’s giving the data back to the rightcustomer without some form of IDassurance or secure login. And asbanks and utilities start to providestructured data back to customers it’sa small step for them to sign it suchthat it in turn becomes the proofrequired for ID assurance. Similarlygovernment passport and licensingservices are moving to provideelectronic counterparts of their paperlicences and certificates. This bringsabout the digital counterpart of whatwe used to do in providing paperbank statements and utility bills.

The missing link is the personal datastore controlled by the individual, andto which only the individual has the

key, operating in a trust framework sosharing is controlled by technologyand contract law. That’s what MydexCIC does. It gives the individual aunique, personally encrypted datastore to which only the individual setsthe combination lock.

Trusted, protected online relationshipswill save people time and theExchequer vast sums. An organisationand an individual can share a two-way encrypted connection for adecade at the same cost to theorganisation of sending a single letter.

There are plenty of valid priorities forpublic expenditure. The cripplingcosts of organisation-centric or evenVictorian era information logistics arenot among them.

William Heath is anentrepreneur and chairmanof Mydex CIC [email protected]

November 2013 will see a short collective sigh of relief across UKuniversities, as the submissions for the 2014 Research ExcellenceFramework (REF) are made. It will be around a year later that theresults are available, determining how research funding fromgovernment will be distributed to UK tertiary education institutions.

Professor Peter W. McOwanis Vice Principal, PublicEngagement and StudentEnterprise at Queen Mary,University of London

[email protected] scienceassocation.org

Charlotte ThorleyManager PublicEngagement at QueenMary, University of London

[email protected]


FEATURE

As in the past a large proportion willdepend on the quality of researchpapers published, and how panelsof experts assess the standing ofthese pieces of work. This time,however, something new is on thetable: the REF impact statements.

Generally it’s fair to say thatacademics are still unsure of REFand Impact. After all, it’s a new setof largely untested rules. However,impact has the potential to beuseful for those trying to establishand reward a culture of publicengagement activity. It providesboth a carrot (potential funding)and a stick (provision of robustevidence, in other words moredata to collect and forms to fill in).

Scope of impactThe REF guidelines1 state:Assessment criteria: impact: ‘Themain panel welcomes case studiesdescribing impacts that haveprovided benefits to one or moreareas of culture, the economy, theenvironment, health, public policyand services, quality of life, orsociety, whether locally, regionally,nationally or internationally.’

This definition clearly includespublic engagement (PE) butcritically, only PE based on specificand citable research papers fromthe individuals involved. General PEactivity, such as promoting andundertaking dialogue on thesubject area, is not counted. This isworrying, especially if it leadsuniversities to reframe their PEactivity to the metrics instead of the

interests of teachers and students.

What counts?The problem is that the rules forassessment are not entirely clear,and as it is a new system there is noprecedent to indicate exactly whatthe assessors are looking for.Though a number of exemplar casestudies were undertaken, reviewedand rated, and the results madepublic, many institutions will chooseto play it safe, reducing their risk.They will put in case studies wheredirect impact can be clearlydemonstrated, for example inindustry, where research paper Alead to the production of widget B.

In medicine and science this may bea safer bet. However, it acts as adisincentive to wider PE activity, as itencourages researchers to focus ondoing PE around their own researchpapers rather than more generallyon the subjects they teach. In thehumanities the needs and deliverymodels of impact are frequently verydifferent, and many feel we have along way to go in understanding thebest ways of reporting, documenting,evaluating and sharing practice fromcurrent PE work.

Staying aheadJust doing more activity isn’tnecessarily a good thing right now.Quality is the key. Evidencecollection and activities that arethoughtful, have the audience inmind and consider wider economicand social benefits should be whatmakes a good PE REF case study,and perhaps as importantly a more

transparent and engaged universitysystem. However if we encouragestaff to do more PE, and they don’tmake it into impact statements, werun the risk of discouraging them.

Regardless of REF, institutions needto ensure that they value PE workmore generally in promotionscriteria, workload allocation andappraisal, and by finding ways tosupport and develop practitioners,and sharing best practice.

This time we learn; next time we’ll bemore ready and know what’s what.Unless of course, the next REFincludes as big a change as this one– then we’ll have to get our crystalballs out again to make sure we’reahead of the game.

1 See http://www.ref.ac.uk/

Note: This article reflects the authors’personal views as experienced PEpractitioners.

Just doing more activityisn’t necessarily a goodthing right now. Qualityis the key

Public engagement and the researchexcellence framework One step in the right direction, concludePeter McOwan and Charlotte Thorley


I have been sharing my scientific proclivities, in public, since I was 13.My early enthusiasm for science was ignited by space exploration,the rise of the microprocessor, and the promise of unlimited energyfrom artificial suns.

It has continued to be some part of my everyday work almost eversince; in industry and furthereducation; in schools, prisons anddrop-in centres for disabled people;at public events and eveningclasses; in engineering firms, and at the Workers’ EducationalAssociation.

I didn’t apply for my first researchjob until 12 years ago. It wasimmediately obvious that manyacademics, already adjusting to the increasing emphasis onundergraduate teaching, sawengagement with the wider public as a mere side-show.

Of course researchers know thatfunding councils and big industriesdon’t print the money that fundsthem. They also know that we live in an open, connected society. So any attempt to ignore how thefunding bodies get their money is,as described by Brian Cox at theBritish Science Association’s ScienceCommunication Conference,‘myopic’.

Not part of the contractYou cannot blame academics forbeing short sighted. We have haddecades of short-term contracts,the pellmell pursuit of scarce postsvia a good publication record, andincreasing pressure to securefunding is piled on to the demandfor excellence in undergraduateteaching. And anyway, when Iemailed a colleague recently toask for someone to represent theirresearch group at a university-sponsored public event, he saidone of his postdocs might be willing,

but that it was ‘outside her jobdescription’. He is absolutely right –it is; the myopia is, by omission, part of the contract.

I am lucky to be working alongsidesenior colleagues who can see thatthere is value in my continuingoutreach activities. When the newCognition Institute at PlymouthUniversity came in to existence, Isuccessfully applied for the firstresearch fellowship at the universitythat incorporated an explicit publicengagement remit. For me, at least, itis inside my job description. I regardedthis as a small victory despite theshort–term, part-time contract.

Seven years ago I was a Famelabfinalist which led to my first invitationto speak at the Cheltenham ScienceFestival. I had sailed too close to thewider public engagementcommunity and, because I had noone to tie me to the mast, I was luredonto the rocks. This opened my eyesto many more disparate routesthrough which academics candevelop ideas and cooperate onprojects: national competitions,open-mic events, citizen science,and many others. If we are to reachthe widest audience, it is essentialthat the projects we support arediverse and inventive.

‘Pointless’Not all academics will want to getinvolved in any of these, but I havebeen surprised by how sceptical, or dismissive, many are of theirvalue. This is particularly true of my regular support for science and maths in primary schools, which I have been told recently

Martin Coath is a scientist, communicator, and musician. He works both as a freelanceand at the Cognition Institute,Plymouth University. Heworked with TimandraHarkness on a project for the2013 Edinburgh Festival called‘BrainSex’

[email protected]

One man’s experience

Martin Coath persists with engagement

Science needs to foster a joint enterprise with thesociety that funds it, andwhich benefits from its work

FEATURE

are ‘pointless’. There is certainly a lot of work yet to be done.

Science needs to foster a jointenterprise with the society thatfunds it, and which benefits from its work. When I say this out loud Istill tend to receive blank looks and awkward silences. This isn’t just about publicity for yourresearch, getting your face in the media, building your CV, ormeeting a grant deliverable. If you believe that democracy isstrengthened when the peoplewho vote understand the issues,then it is a matter of citizenship.

Only the research community cantake responsibility for this, and as a result universities must commit to taking a leading role.


One hundred years ago, science transformed medical practice,resulting in a seismic improvement in human health andwellbeing. The psychological sciences – which seek to understandthe mental processes involved in learning – could impacteducation in a similar way.

FEATURE

Turn maths andscience educationon its head!Psychological sciences should inform what goes on in the classroom, says Jo Evershed

Jo Evershed is an economistturned psychologist. This articleis adapted from a presenta-tion given to the Royal SocietyVision Committee for Mathsand Science [email protected]

Mathematical story-tellingBasic arithmetic is to mathematicsas basic letter and wordrecognition is to literature.

Thankfully, the joy of reading stories is shared with children, before theycan read, and inspires children topersevere with basic reading skills. By the same token, it can be arguedthat engaging children in theapplication of mathematics, beforethey can do arithmetic, will inspirethem to persevere with basicarithmetic skills.

Like language, mathematics describesand constructs the world around us.Demonstrating mathematicalrelationship with everyday objects thatrelate to a child’s experience can show them this. For instance,mathematics describes how manyloaves of bread you need a week inorder to feed a family of five whoeach eat four slices of bread a day.

The beauty of a concrete approachis that children learn that theirobservations can be combined – in a mathematical model – to answernovel questions. It may even inspirechildren to seek out new informationin order to make better predictionsabout their environment; a motivationthat is a foundation to STEM careers.

Unfortunately, most children spendthe majority of primary school learningarithmetic and have to wait untilsecondary school or university beforethey encounter applied mathematics.If their early experience of arithmeticis unpleasant, they can be put off forlife. Consequently, exposure to real-world uses of mathematics in tandemwith the current syllabus should formthe basis of maths and scienceeducation from nursery to graduation.

Concrete and abstract thinkingPeople readily accept that teachingapplied mathematics would engageand motivate students, but fear suchan approach would inhibit a student’sability to develop abstract (context-independent) representations ofmathematics.

Abstract representations are essentialfor transferring knowledge from aknown to a novel domain, and thisknowledge transference is essential to success in STEM subjects. Butpsychology teaches us somethingcounter-intuitive: that we form themost meaningful abstractrepresentations if we start with aconcrete example.

So, in science, children can recognisethat their skin protects them from dirt and infection, that their clothesprotect them from their environment,and that a house protects them fromthe elements. From these multiple and varied concrete representations,children can derive an abstractrepresentation of a barrier affordingprotection and use this to understandthat the ozone layer, something that they can neither see nor touch, protects the planet from the sun’s radiation.

Children can form abstractrepresentations more easily when ateacher gradually simplifies multipleconcrete and detailed examples soas to draw attention to the commonstructural features which arenecessary for the abstract idea.

An approach informed by evidencefrom the psychological scienceswould advocate that educationalbest practice would teach using apractical experience first, and study

the theory second, as this supports the natural formation of abstractrepresentations.

Neuroscientists are also currentlyinvestigating the neural underpinningsand development of abstractreasoning. Several fMRI studies haveshown that specific prefrontal areas(the front of the brain) are involvedwith abstract thought, and that theseregions change in many different waysbetween childhood and adulthood.This understanding may eventuallyinform teaching practice.

Lifelong learningAn applied approach to maths andscience education enhances studentmotivation, and supports and enrichesthe development of context-independent thought. Throughlearning to see both the concreteexperience and abstractrepresentation in everydayexperience, children becomeequipped to be life-long learners and original thinkers.

The beauty of a concreteapproach is that childrenlearn that their observationscan be combined - in amathematical model - toanswer novel questions


With 820,000 people in the UK living with dementia and numbers rising,there has been a huge increase in interest around dementia andresearch. To help the public feel more informed about dementiaresearch and confident in interpreting new research findings, we atAlzheimer’s Research UK created a virtual lab tour – The Lab.

The Lab takes people through three photo-realistic researchenvironments – Discovery Lab,Development Lab and The Clinic –representing the translation of ideasthrough to new treatments forpeople with dementia.

DiscoveryThe Discovery Lab represents theearly stages of the researchprocess. Visitors can learn abouthow researchers’ ideas are fundedand the current state-of-play ofdementia research funding in theUK. Despite dementia costing theUK economy more than £23bn ayear, dementia research still onlyaccounts for around 2.5 per cent ofthe government research budget.Our Dementia 2010 report showedthat investment in research forevery £1million in social and healthcosts was £129,269 for cancer andonly £4,882 for dementia.

The Discovery Lab reveals moreabout why studying the minutedetail of genes and molecules canhelp to unravel dementia, why fruitflies can provide important insightinto the genetics behind diseaseslike Alzheimer’s, and presents slideshows of amazing images seendown the microscope by ourresearchers. Discoveries made atthis stage can make huge strides for our understanding of thediseases that cause dementia, but there is often a long way to go before these findings lead to benefits for people.

Development and clinicThe Development Lab takes thesefindings a step further, discussinghow potential new treatmentsdeveloped from these ideas areshortlisted for testing in people. This area also helps people tounderstand other types of clinicalresearch, from the development of blood-based markers to improvedetection of diseases likeAlzheimer’s, to longitudinal studiesvital for teasing apart risk factors.

The final stage of The Lab is calledThe Clinic and discusses how newtreatments are taken throughclinical trials. Successes at this stage can have a direct impact onpeople with dementia, but thesestudies can take many years andcost many millions of pounds. TheClinic also outlines a new drugdiscovery initiative announced byAlzheimer’s Research UK to helpstreamline the development of newdrug targets, to help bring benefitsto patients sooner.

Hopes for supportVisitors to The Lab can connect tothe site using Facebook, allowingtheir visit to be individually tailoredand to encourage them to pledgetheir support for dementia researchto their network of friends. There are many different ways to supportresearch, from fundraising forAlzheimer’s Research UK tovolunteering to take part inresearch studies. The Lab empowerspeople to take an active interest inresearch and how they can help.

The dementia

lab Laura Phipps lifts the lid on dementia research

FEATURE

Dr Laura Phipps is the Science CommunicationsOfficer at Alzheimer’sResearch UK, the UK’sleading dementia research charity [email protected]

We know through talking to oursupporters that medical researchfascinates people and supportingresearch can provide hope andpositivity to those going throughtough times. But the idea ofdementia research can also be an intimidating one. With so manydifferent kinds of research takingplace into dementia and newresearch breakthroughsannounced every day, it can be difficult to know how it all fits together.

With around 40 per cent of the UKpopulation knowing a close friendor family member with dementia, it is a subject close to many heartsand its impacts can be felt acrossgenerations. We want The Lab tobe an engaging and fun way forour supporters to learn about theresearch we are funding, as well as attracting new and youngeraudiences to show an interest in medical research.

Visit The Lab by Alzheimer’sResearch UK atwww.dementialab.org

The Lab empowerspeople to take anactive interest inresearch and how they can help

FEATURE

In 2010 the university deployed anetwork of specialised GPSreceivers across the Antarcticcontinent for long-term observationof space weather effects. Thisinvolved camping at remote sitesacross the central icy plateau andworking outdoors in temperaturesas low as -30

oC.

To bring the ‘Space Weather’experience to the science museumin July 2013, we exhibited actualcamping equipment and clothingused in the Antarctic as aninteractive and hands-on display.This worked particularly well foryounger children who enjoyedtrying on furry headwear and snowboots! The challenge for theexhibitors was to get across thescientific aspects of the research.

Complex physicsSpace weather describes theinteractions that occur within the complex Sun-Earth system. Our technologies and criticalinfrastructure are now heavilydependent on a growing family of satellites that sit in the fragilenear-Earth space environment.Satellite positioning and timingsystems now control a vast numberof applications ranging fromaircraft and marine navigation,ocean floor drilling, and tracking of endangered species.

The Northern and Southern lights of the aurorae are a spectacularphenomenon associated withspace weather, but they’re onlyone component of a large anddynamic Sun-Earth system. ThePolar Regions are essentially ‘open’ to solar radiation throughthe funnel effect of near-vertical

geomagnetic field lines. Periods ofenhanced solar activity canenergise the Earth’s atmosphere,when it exhibits dynamic storm-likebehaviour that affects radio signals.The physics is complex and, in orderto understand this behaviour,observations have to considerprocesses that occur over a hugerange of scale in space and time.

Different age groupsMost people are now familiar withGPS through navigation, and so for adults it was easy to explain that these signals can be disruptedby the aurora and that this cancause problems for othertechnological systems such as radio communications.

For teenagers already studyingscience subjects at school, theexhibition gave them anopportunity to see a differentaspect of career progression inengineering at university. For olderchildren below teenage years, the concept of the Earth having a magnetic field (like a big barmagnet) and aurorae wasappealing. However the unifyingtheme for all age groups from 3-83 years old was the movie of the penguins whose appealtranscended all ages!

Personal experienceOn reflection we learned a lot from the exhibition. Firstly, to a lot of people a scientist is a generalscientist and should be able toanswer any science question.‘What do my dreams mean?’ forexample, was perhaps the mostunexpected question throughoutthe exhibition week. Secondly,

The different ages of space weatherCathryn Mitchell and Joe Kinradetry to amuse them all

Earlier this year the University of Bath was invited by the Londonscience museum to display an exhibition about space weatherand remote fieldwork in Antarctica.

Cathryn Mitchell is Professor inthe Department of Electronicand Electrical Engineering

[email protected]

Joe Kinrade is a research assistant in the Department of Electronic and Electrical Engineering

[email protected]


The main thing we learnedwas that, as scientists, itwas well worth giving upour time to explain whatwe’re doing

young children are easy to engagebut also lose interest very quickly, soit’s important to have a number ofdifferent activities to do. Once theysee other children trying on Antarcticclothing they are very happy to joinin, but they needed encouragementat first.

We found that the most challengingage group was 9-12 year olds – too oldto try on giant gloves, but perhaps tooyoung to see themselves as scientistsor engineers of the future. The adultvisitors ranged from keen parents andgrandparents, to amateur radioenthusiasts, and young couples thatwere out for the day in London. Wehad positive responses and interactionfrom all of these groups.

The main thing we learned was that,as scientists, it was well worth givingup our time to explain what we’redoing. The visitors really appreciatedspeaking to people who had personalexperience of the fieldwork andscience in the exhibition, and wethoroughly enjoyed sharing our stories.

Picaresque recollections

Pauline Marstrand remembers previous Festivals

Science studentswere invited tovolunteer as ‘runners’for this first post-warmeeting, and I wasdelighted to beallotted to GP Wells,as his father HG wasone of my heroes

FEATURE

1948, BrightonThe President was Sir Henry Tizard. Iwas studying at Brighton TechnicalCollege for a degree in Chemistrywith Physics, Zoology and Botany,awarded externally by the Universityof London. Science students wereinvited to volunteer as ‘runners’ forthis first post-war meeting, and I wasdelighted to be allotted to GP Wells,as his father HG was one of myheroes. The only qualification waspossession of a bicycle, and I spentalmost all the time scurrying betweenthe Dome, the Pavilion, the Tech andvarious hotels. I met friends of my lategrandfather, the amateur naturalistand geologist EA Martin,1 who werevery welcoming. I attended theclosing ‘banquet’ – mainlysandwiches, and a dance led by a local band. An astonishingconjunction of academics dancedthe Boompsa-Daisy, the HokeyCokey, the Lambeth Walk, theChestnut Tree and the Palais Glide.

1974, StirlingThe President was Sir John Kendrew. Iattended Section X, which had beenfounded by JD Bernal, Peter RitchieCalder, Solly Zuckerman and othersas a general committee to hold moreor less annual meetings during thewar. When normality resumed theypersuaded Council to reinstate it as a General Section, known as X, andable to arrange programmes onalmost anything. I was invited onto its committee in 1975.

1976, AstonSection X had Chris Brasher as itsPresident for the topic Science andSport. CB was very enthusiastic, butafter about two meetings he becameentangled with his new LondonMarathon (which he co-founded), andresigned. Help! Someone suggested a professor at Loughborough, whofortunately accepted.

1981, YorkThe Section X theme was nuclearpower and nuclear weapons. One of the speakers was David Owen, theForeign Secretary, who was much infavour of continuing and renewingTrident. He didn’t want to meet thepress, and I spent much of my timeheading them off. [I finally caught up with him as he was leaving, andinterviewed him in his taxi on the wayto the station. – Ed] I was secretary of X by this time.

I think this may have been the lastoccasion on which we paraded thestreets in caps and gowns, watchedby an enthusiastic gaggle of locals.

1984, NorwichJohn Durant was Secretary of X. The theme was Science Fiction andFantasy. James Randi, the Americanmagician, claimed to be able toproduce any ‘magic’ tricks bymaterial and explicable means. He almost came to blows with some more romantically-inclinedenthusiasts for the occult.

1986, BristolSir Richard Gregory led Section X, onPerception and Illusion. Dan Dennetttook everyone out to dinner. We hada moving eulogy for Alan Turing.

1987, BelfastJonathan Miller was President ofSection X. The theme was Humour.

We had on the committee a verylively and talented entrepreneur ofscience and the arts, Jasia Reichardt.The only way we succeeded ingetting JM to a meeting was for Jasia to invite him to her house inBelsize Park for breakfast.

Even then, she had to go and fetchhim! The breakfast was morememorable than the meetings:asparagus and bacon, croissants,canapés, copious Rioja.


On the morning of the meeting inBelfast, JM appeared looking ratherwan. He was amazed at howuncomfortable the bed had been,and appalled by the queue forbreakfast. He booked into theSheraton for the rest of the week.

1990, SwanseaColin Blakemore was President ofSection X. The dinner was held at aplace on The Mumbles, and CBcarefully checked underneath and inthe bonnet of his car for bombsplanted by animal-rights activistsbefore driving to and from the venue.

1 Amongst various other activities, EA Martin FGSworked with Bernard Shaw, MalcolmMuggeridge’s father and Croydon MayorKeighley Moore to save Croham Hurst, nearCroydon, from development.

Pauline Marstrand is aretired biologist and science policyresearcher. She is along-standing memberof the British ScienceAssociation

After his Cambridge degree, wherehe enlivened his mathematicalstudies with work on Varsity, avacation stint as a sub-editor on amedical weekly persuaded him hecould make his way as a journalist. Hecovered science policy for the TimesHigher Education Supplement, thenas Nature’s Washingtoncorrespondent and Science’s man inEurope, based in Paris.

He came back to Britain at the endof the 1980s so his children couldcomplete their education here, andworked at New Scientist as newseditor, and then – briefly andunhappily – as editor. He regroupedat Nature, which he rejoined as newseditor in 1992. Later that decade, heworked with Nature’s support toassemble the elements of a neworganisation, Sci-Dev.Net, dedicatedto exploiting the internet to bringinformation about science andtechnology to developing countries.

SciDev.Net launched as a not for profitcompany in 2001, and he directed ituntil his retirement last year. It was, in away, a return to the concern of hisimportant book, Alternative Technologyand The Politics of Technical Change,which appeared in the 1970s: How canone maximise the contribution ofscience and technology to humanwell-being, worldwide?

A lifelong man of the Left, he wore hispolitics lightly, and was refreshinglyunsectarian. It influenced his choiceof subjects as much as the stories hewrote, and sharpened hisappreciation of the workings ofpower. In later years, he welcomedthe advent of public understandingof science and sciencecommunication as academic andpolicy concerns, and the richerdebate about science and its publicsthat ensued. But he also continued topoint out that, across much of theworld, a little more scientific literacywould go a long way.

Under his leadership, SciDev.Net grewinto an essential global resource. Itsother main concern was developingcapacity in science writing, andmany budding writers benefitted from

the tutelage of David and thenetwork of regional co-ordinators he built up.

He continued to write, speak and leadworkshops since his formal retirementin 2012, the same year he received alifetime achievement award from theAssociation of British Science Writers.The continuing success of SciDev.Net ishis lasting legacy, along with a globalconstellation of writers who found himan inspiring mentor, a good friend andan unfailing source of good advice.

Dr Jon Turney is a science andpolicy writer based in Bristol,UK. He contributes tofutureearth.info and GreenFutures, among otherpublications and blogs atunreliablefutures.wordpress.com and scienceobserved.wordpress.com

[email protected]

Sue Hordijenko is Director of Programmes at the BritishScience Association

[email protected]


Obituary

David Dickson,1947 – 2013

He attended the British Science Festivalsince the 1970s, first as a journalist andlater heavily involved in organisingevents. He devoted many years to theFestival's General Section, Section X,leading the Section as Recorder since2002. He served on Council as a trusteefrom 2008 and the Association’s AuditCommittee from 2010.

The Association and I personally havegreatly benefited from knowing David.

Whatever I asked of him, whether it be taking part in a session at theScience Communication Conference,speaking in a debate on GM or helping wine and dine many anAssociation President or sponsor, he always delivered.

As I sit here thinking about him, I realise that he was a man of wonderful paradoxes – a deeplyanalytical journalistic brain yet awonderfully warm kind heart. Anincredibly busy person yet someonewho always gave you time.

Speaking at his all-too-prematurefuneral, David’s brother said somethingthat made me smile. As a small boy,

when David started at infants’ school,he went straight into the second year.He didn’t bother with the first year ashe simply didn’t need to.

David Dickson left a lasting impressionon all who had the immense pleasureof knowing him. His life has been cutshort way too soon.

David Dickson, who diedsuddenly at the end of July, waswidely admired for his careeradvancing the global conver-sation about science and society.

We at the British ScienceAssociation have beenprivileged to have enjoyed along and rewarding relationshipwith David.

Biohackers: the politicsof open science, byAlessandro Delfanti.

Pluto, 2013Amanda Rees findsan odd concoction

it’s odd to read a bookabout biohackers thathas an index entry for‘entrepreneurship’, butnot one for ‘ethics’

REVIEW

If you could combine the gangling garage physicists of RobertHeinlein’s early science fiction novels with John Wyndham’s prescientacknowledgement of biology as the queen of the sciences, you mightwind up with the figure of the ‘biohacker’: committed to pursuingknowledge for its own sake, unwilling to be constrained, whether bybureaucratic, legal or institutional impediment. In this book, Delfantihas done an excellent job of outlining the hopes and embodying theoptimism that lie behind this approach to research and knowledge.

Hackers as heroesEssentially, what he does is to show how the language (metaphors,narrative structures) used by or about those involved in such projectscomplements and resonates withthat used to describe earlier – andmore morally uplifting – periods inscientific history. So, the hacker is a heroic figure, even a heretic,comparable to Galileo, Newton and Einstein.

They act in a way commensuratewith the scientific ideals of the mid-20th century, which themselvesderive from the values that emergedduring the Scientific Revolution.Knowledge should be publiclyavailable, should be assessed on its merits and (crucially) should not be the source of monetary profit for the knowledge producer.

Many of these values, not all of whichwere consistently adhered to, seemto have been lost as knowledgebecomes increasingly digitalised and monetized through the late 20thand early 21st centuries. Naturally,the story is a lot more complicatedthan this – as Delfanti is careful toacknowledge – but he is interestedprimarily in how the politics of theopen science movement areinfluencing the doing of science, and how both are inflected (or,oddly, ‘contaminated’, in his term) by the values and social mores of the hacker community.

Thin case studiesThe trouble is that this is an enormoustopic, and this is a very short book(only 140 pages). Delfanti’s outline ofhis main thesis, which comprises thefirst three chapters, is not really verywell supported by his three casestudies (Craig Venter, Ilaria Capuaand DIYbio), all of which would havebeen improved by the inclusion ofmore detail and data.

As things stand, his discursive analysisis allusive and thought provoking, but could have done with beingrather more tightly tied to the earlierdiscussion of the studies of scientificpractice and institution. This wouldhave given greater context andwider significance to his analysis of the relationship between science, democracy, capitalism and neo-liberalism.

No EthicsIn addition, Delfanti’s clearenthusiasm and approbation of the hacker attitude, whileenormously enjoyable to read, is in danger of blinding him to some less salubrious aspects of thisapproach to ‘open science’.

In his introduction, he notes that a scientist friend worried for hisphysical safety in the context of poor US regulation of dangerouschemicals – but the question of thepotential misuse either of resources or knowledge does not recur. Giventhat much of the study’s focus is on

Dr Amanda Rees is SeniorLecturer at theDepartment of Sociologyat the University of [email protected]


language and morality in theconsideration of intellectual propertyissues, it is rather odd not to seesome of the other criminal aspectsof hacking at least referenced.

Both at an individual and at aninternational, even global level,there are grounds for more andmore concern about therelationship between cyber securityand personal safety. In an erawhere scientists are asked toconsider actually suppressing data,for fear of its misuse by terrorists, it’sodd to read a book aboutbiohackers that has an index entryfor ‘entrepreneurship’, but not onefor ‘ethics’.


Readers’ opinionsBefore we went online, we felt it was the right time to ask our readerswhat you think about our content. We will use your feedback toguide the content we create for the website.

Here are some of the comments the survey produced. By far thegreatest group complained about discontinuing the paper edition.

I have to sadly admit that today’s email prompted me to read theon-line version for the first time! I found 3 articles that are of directcurrent relevance to projects I’m involved with. I will now makereference to the resource in my work as an international scienceeducation consultant and add it to my list of useful websites for teachers.

CORRESPONDENCE

Make it more tangible and actionable.

I stopped reading P&S when you hadthis incredible drivel on climatescience by James Delingpole andJudith Curry. This was seriousmisinformation and I felt that I can’ttrust the information in P&S any moreif your editorial team apparently is notable to spot politically motivatedobvious distortions.

P&S reads like a stitch up. It makes mefeel it is always pushing the line thegovernment wants me to believe.

It also seems to push lines convenientto big business.

It would be nice to see moreapproval of science and technologyand less knocking.

I know it’s the British ScienceAssociation but it would be nice tohear of successful projects overseasthat engage school children or thepublic in science.

I’d like more debates on ethics and science.

The forums and opportunities toconduct online surveys etc areinformative.

The formulation of science,technology and medicine policy in Parliament should be covered morefully and reports provides on particulardebates in the Commons and Lords.

I’m sorry that this will not continue in print as I often go back to it, refer toit or give to others in a way I don’tthink I will do with the digital version.

I often feel your articles don’t go into enough depth.

I think the content feels dated, the layout of the magazine isunappealing (primary-schoolish) andgenerally there are more interestingthings that could be covered in amore engaging way. I always have askim and maybe get tempted to readjust one of the articles.

Keep up the good work!I value People & Science as the only specialised news source (that I’m aware of) for sciencecommunication/science in society issues, and always make a point of reading it to help keepabreast of what’s going on in thesector. It’s nice and clear to readand well-presented.

The design of the magazine is really uninviting. For anorganisation aboutcommunication, it’s an incrediblydull looking publication.

To improve it, I’d like to see more investigative features thatprovide an overview and critiqueof key issues, to get you thinking.

I think People & Science isfantastic with really interestingand topical content.

People & Science needs toconsider regular, focused e-newsletters to readers with linksto its own articles and featureson line as well as links to other sources. Such anewsletter might provoke me to read the on-line journal.Inclusion of a specific P&S RSSfeed would also be useful (not a generic BSA feed.)

E-journals are boring. Reading oncomputers is bad for your backand is generally horrible. It is toomuch like work. I used to readthe journal for information andpleasure but why on earth wouldI want to go and read it online?


BROWNIEPOINTS

Just because knowledge– or lack of it – doesn’taccount for everythingpeople think, doesn’tmean you’re wrong to tell people what you know

Discussing sciencecommunicationToo precious, argues Tracey Brown

The academic commentary about public engagement inscience is too controlling. This autumn’s publication of a BISreview of science and society initiatives1 is a good moment toend the superior tone of academic discourse about knowledgeversus consultation and chill out about discussing science.

Sure, argue about the best waysand which publics. If you haveexperience of doing it, you cannothelp but find some attempts todiscuss science with the publiccrass, or founded on odd ideas. Ihave noticed that more than a fewscientists who moan about codscience do a good line in codsociology about why people don’tlike technologies. I have, too often,struggled to retain the will to livewhen chairing question sessions atevents about science controversies,as the third questioner seizes themicrophone and begins, ‘I think itall goes back to the schools...’

But ultimately, the diversity of whatpeople want to achieve withengagement and what others wantfrom it means that there is no onetrue path. There is not a rule abouthow much giving of informationand how much consulting musthappen in any scienceengagement exercise. It is not aReally Bad Thing if, say,paediatrician and immunologyexpert Paul Offit tells people whathe knows about vaccines,forcefully. That might be a goodway to challenge health writers, butnot effective for a health visitortrying to increase vaccine uptake.

Knowledge mattersA small kerfuffle broke out over theinterpretation of the Wellcome TrustMonitor survey2 earlier this year. Thesurvey indicated that the publicoften doesn’t want to be involved

in decisions, said Hannah Baker of Wellcome in a Guardiancommentary, and perhaps we arenot paying enough attention to theimportance of science education.

While the knowledge deficit modelmight be discredited, surely that’snot the same as saying thatknowledge doesn’t matter? SimonLock and Melanie Smallman ofUniversity College London didn’tagree and pointed to the limitedrole of evidence in the way peoplerespond to GM, for example.

That some attempts to tacklediscussions such as organ retentionor vaccines have been ineffectivedoes not mean that the idea ofimparting knowledge is wrong. Itdepends on what you are trying toachieve and on what people areasking from you. Sometimes peoplewant expertise, sometimes theyneed to hear arguments against a news article on the HPV vaccine,sometimes they wantaccountability for how a decisionhas been reached, and sometimesthey want to have a say.

Too preciousIdeas about sciencecommunication have just becometoo precious, when really there is noone size fits all response to questionsbefore us which involve evidenceand decisions. The sciencecommunication experts andacademics have been advisinggovernment and big institutions foryears about engagement (or rather

telling them off), but their slide showsabout others’ deficiencies are still a lot longer than those about their own successes.

Facts and information sometimeschange things and sometimes theydon’t. Just because knowledge – or lack of it – doesn’t account foreverything people think, doesn’tmean you’re wrong to tell peoplewhat you know. After all, we as asociety choose to pay for expertise, in the form of the education andresearch that give rise to it. It makes amockery of democratic debate not touse it. And we should use knowledge,and argue about it, any way we like.

1 See www.gov.uk/government/policies/engaging-the-public-in-science-and-engineering--3/activityBlog at http://discuss.bis.gov.uk/bisdigital/2013/05/01/bis-digital-engagement-case-study-series-science-and-society-review/

2 See http://www.wellcome.ac.uk/News/Media-office/Press-releases/2013/WTP052617.htm

Tracey Brown is the Directorof Sense About Science

[email protected]


STEM INPARLIAMENT

Regenerative medicine in the UKPhil Willis diagnoses huge potential but enduring problems

Lord Willis of Knaresboroughis a member of the LordsSelect committee onScience and Technology [email protected]

companies a tax-advantagedinvestment and tax breaks. This isone possible solution, as is theCalifornian model of the creation of ‘mega funds’ or secured bonds.There are also other options.

A more readily achievable goal is to streamline the regulatory systemwhich is robust but not responsive to this fast emerging field. Theestablishment of the HealthResearch Authority as a non-departmental government bodygives it the power and scope tomake significant changes, to cut out overlap, establish a single pointof entry and exit and offer acomprehensive advice service toresearchers and commercialcompanies. The notion that‘because the science is complex so must the regulation’ is asunhelpful as it is unnecessary.

The report sets out a number of clear and achievable objectives.They must be acted upon swiftly,before other nations overtake us.

1 The report is at www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201314/ldselect/ldsctech/23/2302.htm

Regenerative medicine, that is thereplacement or regeneration ofcells, tissues and organs to restore orestablish normal function, has hugepotential. This is no longer inquestion. There are already over amillion patients who have receivedcell-based treatments globally. Inlaboratories across the USA, Europeand Asia, over 1000 clinical trials aretaking place promisingbreakthroughs in the treatment ofchronic diseases including diabetes,coronary disease and a wide rangeof neurological conditionsassociated with ageing.

Economic incentiveFor governments, the opportunitiesto reduce costs of dealing with longterm chronic illness are highlysignificant. Some 30 per cent of UKcitizens suffer from chronicconditions including diabetes,strokes, dementia, heart and kidneydisease which take up 75 per centof current NHS spend. This willcontinue to rise with the NHS facinga funding shortfall of between£44bn and £54bn by 2022 – not tomention the very significanteconomic costs where people areof working age. Regenerativemedicine has the potential toprovide more effective treatmentsand in a number of cases a cure.This is why we need a more urgent approach to ensurethe UK takes advantage of itsposition at the very forefront of thisnew landscape.

The House of Lords Report,Regenerative Medicine,1

acknowledges the excellence of the UK academic base in the

areas of cell and gene therapies,recognises an almost uniqueinfrastructure led by a 67 million-strong NHS patient database, agrowing R&D funding base and thebuy-in of Ministers in BIS, Health andcrucially the Treasury where theChancellor has given the area‘capital priority status’.

Improve funding andregulationThe report however sends out a very stark warning that the UK is indanger of losing out onregenerative medical potential,largely because of a lack of co-ordinated leadership, a lack ofappropriate funding models forhigh-risk low-volume treatments andan over-complex regulatoryenvironment. As so often in the past,brilliant science is far too slow tomove from laboratory to bedside aswe attempt to apply traditionalmodels of regulation, finance andgovernance when new, moreradical approaches are necessary.

The lack of substantial private sectorinvestment is hardly surprising. This isa relatively new field and it haspotential risks which make investorswary. What is more, thedevelopment of treatments withpotentially low volumes of patients isnot attractive to big pharma. Toexpect the newly formed CellTherapy Catapult to support lateclinical trials with a budget of £70million spread over five years issimply not adequate. Thesuggestion to look at other non-UKfunding models must be an urgentpriority. The French CitizensInnovation Funds model offers

There are very few occasions when a Parliamentary report createsan almost visionary landscape that has the potential to savemillions of lives, alleviate suffering and reduce health costs forfuture generations.

The lack of substantialprivate sector investmentis hardly surprising. This is arelatively new field and ithas potential risks whichmake investors wary

SOUNDING OFF

It’s as important as specialising,

argues Alice Bell


Dr Alice Bell is a ResearchFellow at SPRU (Science andTechnology Policy Research)at the University of [email protected]

learned alongside students, so youngacademics were offered the samechallenges as undergraduates, but athigher level and with added chance todevelop leadership and teaching skills.This inter-disciplinary and inter-genera-tional model also helped buildrelationships across the college, takingundergrad teaching not just as an endin itself but a space where the universitycould work together.

Specialism is a good thing. But weshould think cleverly about what wewant people to be specialists in, in the21st century, and how we want toprepare students (at all levels) for a lifethat will probably increasingly be aboutconnecting knowledge as well asdeepening our understanding.

1 See http://www3.imperial.ac.uk/horizons

2 See http://www.lse.ac.uk/intranet/students/LSE100/Home.aspx

Climate change seemedlike the obvious startingpoint, though we soonstarted to consider thevarious security issues offood, water and energytoo, as well as global healthand ageing populations.

Connect academia to the

wider world!

Our education system is one of the most specialised in the world.There is a lot to be said for this. It’s one of the reasons so manypeople spend so much money to travel from all over the world tostudy here. Specialism is a good thing in itself. It lets us – quitesimply – specialise; learn more about the tiny details of the worldand further deepen the sum of human knowledge.

But there are problems too. This isoften understood in terms of lackof understanding betweendisciplines or subject groups (forexample ‘two cultures’) but it’s aloss of a chance to considercomplex subjects as a whole too.As cracks in the system becomeever more obvious, universities areincreasingly looking for ways toreconnect educationalprogrammes, and reconnect theirstudents with each other and thewider world with them.

Set of problemsImperial College is experimentingwith such a course, which I helpedpilot and set up last year as part of itsHorizons programme.1 Promptedpartly from feedback from graduateemployers, the course wanted to find ways of helping students to develop problem-solving skills and put their science in context. We also wanted to give them moreopportunities to think about how theycould communicate work to non-specialists, and put disparate – oftenincomplete – knowledge together.

It was an exercise in offering ascience education as a set ofproblems and complex, mixed bitsof knowledge, not the sets ofready-made answers to learn.

Climate change seemed like the obvious starting point, though we soon started toconsider the various security issues of food, water and energytoo, as well as global health and ageing populations.

‘Science doesn’t have a politics’It’s easy to see ‘in context’ work as secondary to the apparentlymore important and authenticexperience of a traditionallyorganised curriculum. Some alsoseemed to find it a bit of a threat.Even supporters in the collegewould dub it ‘soft-skills’, and yet in many respects it was a lotharder. Or simply a different type of challenge.

Most worrying to me were thosewho maintained we couldn’tpossibly talk about politics, onlylearn about how policy mightbetter listen to science, becauseapparently ‘science doesn’t havea politics’. Such a blinkered viewseemed simply unscientific, andmade me deeply concernedabout the consequence ofspending too much time downyour own disciplinary silos.

Only connectStudents at all levels should have a chance to spend time learningabout issues as they come to us inreal life; a mass of interconnectedquestions and partial knowledges,not neatly divided and settledtopics for study.

The course was available to first-year (and now second-year)undergraduates across medicine,engineering and the sciences and – inspired by a course at theLSE – taught in part by PhDstudents and postdocs. The tutors

WATERCOOLER

Tales from thewater coolerBarrie Cadshaw reveals the moversand shakers in public engagement


Barrie Cadshaw is at the British Science Association

[email protected]

MoversPenny Fletcher has left her role asNational Science & EngineeringWeek Project Manager at the BritishScience Association to be Eventsand Public Engagement Managerat the Society of Biology. She isreplaced by Christina Fuentes,former cognitive neuroscientist andSTEMNET ambassador. SueHordijenko is leaving her role asDirector of Programmes at theAssociation. Her (very fashionable)boots will be filled in the interim bythe Association’s Director ofEducation Katherine Mathieson.Nancy Lane has stepped downfrom her position as chair of thePeople & Science EditorialCommittee and Wendy Barnabyhas decided to resign from theeditorship of the magazine fromthe end of 2013. Wendy has rackedup some twelve years’ devotedservice working on the mag and isquite simply irreplaceable.

Also leaving at the end of the yearis Involve’s Deputy Director EdwardAndersson, He plans to return to hisnative Sweden. Jenna Stevens-Smith has joined Imperial College’sDepartment of Bioengineering astheir Outreach Manager.

Physicist and scicommer extraor-dinaire Laurie Winkless left theNational Physical Laboratory at theend of July, to work on NobelMedia AB’s international scienceprogrammes. Nobel Media AB isthe media arm of the NobelFoundation.

ShakersAt the latest Cheltenham ScienceFestival, self-confessed daredevilscience presenter Greg Foot wascaught climbing on top of a roofwithout having given prior notification to the logistics team (tsk tsk) and without a risk assessment!

At the recent Science in Publicconference at NottinghamUniversity the prize for the mostgorgeous delegate went toscience engagement specialistSophia Collins’s one week old son,Squiggle. She tweeted ‘PreppingSquiggle for his first conferenceappearance at #SIP13. He’s findingit hard to choose between some ofthe parallel sessions…’

At the same conference,delegates saw that the best laidplans can come unstuck. UCL’sJack Stilgoe and SPRU’s JamesWilsdon took part in a discussionfollowing Harry Collins’s keynoteaddress. As Harry crossed his armsand found it difficult to explain howseparating ‘technical’ and‘political’ phases of decisionmaking would actually work(comparing himself to Marx in theprocess), James lost patience andcalled Collins’s framework ‘banaland irrelevant’. Following the eventJack tweeted ‘I was supposed tobe bad cop @jameswilson goodcop. But he went all JimmyMcNulty.’

Pubic LiceThe British Science Festival willannounce the winner of yourfavourite ugly animal competition.Currently a joint enterprisebetween the Association’s NationalScience + Engineering Competitionand Simon Watt, who set up theoriginal Ugly Animal PreservationSociety, it is being run to highlightthe importance of conserving someof Mother Nature’s more aesthet-ically-challenged children to youngpeople during the school summerholidays. ‘The panda gets toomuch attention.

Our society needs a mascot, oneto rival the cute and cuddlyemblems of many charities andorganisations,’ declared Simon.Each contending species is beingsupported by a comedian with ashort campaigning clip, and votersare supporting their favourite byliking its associated Youtube clip.Amongst our comediccampaigners are Helen Arney whowill be agitating on behalf of theaxolotol; Paul Foot battling for theblobfish; Rob Wells electioneeringfor the European common eel; Ellie Taylor politicking for theproboscis monkey; Steve Mouldcampaigning for the kakapo,Sarah Bennetto fighting the cornerof the flightless dung beetle andDan Schrieber pontificating onpubic lice - yes, really!

Do get in touch if you hear an

y

tales at the water cooler that

you’d like us to include in the

next

edition of People & Science

.

Documents

People and Science Magazine September 2013