Interview with Lord Robert Winston

Lord Winston is professor of Science and Society and Emeritus Professor of Fertility Studies at Imperial College, regularly presents BBC science programmes, is Chancellor of Sheffield Hallam University, Chairman of the Royal College of Music, and was voted “Peer of the Year” by his fellow Parliamentarians for his expertise and work on the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill.

You’ve spoken a lot about the need for scientists to listen to, and have a dialogue with the public.  How much influence do you think the public should have on science policy?

A great deal. I’ve always said that you cannot trust governments to use science wisely. One example is the use of nuclear power in the 60s. We had nuclear leaks and we already understood that nuclear waste was going to be a problem but the public were not apprised of that situation. I don’t think that situation is tenable now.

In a democracy you need to have a science-literate public who are well educated and who actually take control of the science that it owns. You must remember that it’s the public that pays for science. Government doesn’t. It’s paid for by the taxpayer and in a properly working democracy that must mean that the public have some say in how science is done. Obviously I don’t think any of this denies the role of Research Councils and universities, or the people who actually do the science. I wouldn’t expect a member of the general public to tell me exactly what science to do, but I would expect to be accountable to them.

What would that accountability look like?

I think it needs to be twofold. First of all it means making sure that you’ve engaged the public. As a scientist, you need to make sure you’ve listened to their anxieties, you’ve told them about the benefits, the downsides, and explained that no science is fully predictable and it takes many years before you can mature a scientific idea into something which is a working technology. All those issues have to come into the calculation. Secondly, it means ensuring that the public is literate, as broadly as possible. I think we as scientists have a responsibility to encourage good teaching and to make the relationship between universities and schools a more seamless one.

How far does should this influence go? What is the relationship between public engagement and parliament for example? 

It’s inevitable that in a parliamentary democracy, parliamentarians will take decisions on behalf of society. One good example would be hanging. When capital punishment was debated and abolished, there’s evidence to suggest that the majority of the population were in favour of capital punishment. But MPs in their wisdom decided, I think rightly, to abolish capital punishment. In a sense that is undemocratic. But on the other hand we elect our representatives not merely to slavishly represent our views, but to form judgements about them as well. Where I think the problem starts to exist is where for example civil servants or the press exert too great an influence on decisions.

What about when the issues involved are highly polarised and politicised? Doesn’t this pose a real challenge when taking public opinion into account?

That’s where the dialogue process comes in. To my mind the movement towards dialogue is a positively healthy one. There is a lot of public engagement done, but little good evidence of what the impact really is. With dialogue it’s different. With dialogue there have been a number of concrete examples in the areas of stem cell research, nanotechnology, and the digital economy, where dialogue has created a real coming together of minds. There has been recognition that the public isn’t stupid, that scientists are rather more altruistic than people might imagine, and a recognition that both sides can listen to each other and come to some kind of accord. It’s also clear that in some examples such as in dialogues about nanotechnology, for example, scientists have actually changed the way they do their research in consequence. That’s a really good result, where we can see that the process has made a difference. But one of the challenges of dialogue is that to do it properly it’s expensive. The costs of not engaging, however, can be incredibly high as well – the costs of turning down the rebuild of a nuclear power station, for example, can be massive to society.

What impact might the current economic context have on dialogues such as these?

That’s one of the things that really worries me now. With the current economic problems that Britain believes it’s facing (and we can argue about how real they really are) there has been a pulling back from a great deal of public dialogue and public engagement. So for example, Research Councils used to be committed to a much larger programme of public engagement because they felt that it was their responsibility, but this commitment I think is waning. Unfortunately, the most expensive processes will be the most vulnerable which will be challenging as effective dialogue is not cheap.

If we see reductions in dialogue, do you think there are other structures and processes that you could put in place which would enable continued conversations with the public?

I think the most important issue in the long-term must be much better science education in schools. For example, outreach from universities is very important, and that isn’t very expensive – there are lots of ways of doing it. Teaching children to debate scientific issues in the classroom should be mandatory I think. Really it’s a general education that we need, while seeing science as part of our general culture.

Do you think, then, that science education and communication is really the foundation which is needed in order to have a sensible conversation?

Yes, although with adults it’s a bit more difficult. Even here, though, there’s been a sea change. I’ve noticed in the last three to five years that the press are reporting scientific issues with a growing responsibility. For example during Fukushima, it was remarkable how responsibly even traditionally ‘shock horror’ papers responded. The net result of this reporting was that the attitudes amongst the public towards what had happened in Japan were probably more level-headed in this country. We don’t have hard evidence but what we do know suggests that the British public were far less concerned about the risk of nuclear power than almost any other European country. Compare this with Germany for example, where the knee-jerk reaction was slightly worrying. It’s important therefore that scientists have more conversation with the press and journalists.

There are lots of other ways to improve science education for adults, too. The Cheltenham Science festival is a particularly successful model. It’s successful because the festival listens to the public and during the course of every presentation there’s a dialogue going on. When scientists come back to present a second time, it’s often amazing so see how they’ve changed the way they present. They are much more ready to listen, much less ready to use PowerPoint, much more involved with the audience. This is a great improvement on the traditional science festival model where experts such as me are wheeled in to give a lecture and then wheeled out again.

But I think the single most important thing is that scientists like me make sure that they’re out there talking to the public - being responsible about what we say and making sure we’re listening at the same time.

It sounds like you’re suggesting a model of science communication and education which is quite different to what other science educationalists talk about – almost a hybrid between dialogue and communication.

Yes, but surely the definition of communication by implication is that it is two-way. I think giving a lecture is not communication. Giving a lecture is just giving a lecture. You’re only doing something useful as long as you’re still learning yourself.

I think we’ve come a long way from the old top-down, deficit model to public engagement but we’ve also got a long way to go. I hope it doesn’t sound aggressive if I say that a number of my colleagues who speak on television can still be quite unintelligible to most people, and that is not good communication. There’s no point in making science hard, because it isn’t. Some scientists have the opinion that science should be elitist, but it’s really no harder than studying Jacobean poets in an English lesson. Actually what you see when science is taught to 11 and 12 year olds, is that if they’re taught well they can pick up quantum physics quicker than we do.

The central notion of the government’s Big Society suggests a society where people do things themselves, rather than centralised government doing things to people. That could be seen to work against the set piece dialogues that you’ve been talking about. Do you think this notion is valid?

The Big Society worries me a bit. The trouble with the Big Society doing public engagement is that public engagement is highly professionalised and needs training. It needs the right people to be doing it. It needs a lot of expertise. I think it takes years to get those skills – it’s not something that anyone can walk into.

You’ve mentioned there’s still a lot of progress which needs to be made in science dialogue. Although systems will always be evolving, do you have in mind an end destination of what science dialogue should look like?

I would say first of all we need a listening Government. Although Governments have claimed to be listening, I don’t think we’ve ever established that in Britain. Secondly we need a society where science is seen as integrated with culture, arts and humanities. At the moment, they’re very separate. And thirdly I think we need schools which are a good learning environment for science, and where we don’t lose children after the age 11. All these things are very achievable; I don’t think I’m describing an unrealistic utopia. Although the British public may be in some ways slightly scientifically illiterate, they’re not stupid. They’re very different things. Someone may not have the facts because they haven’t had the chance to get the education that they need. But that doesn’t mean to say they aren’t capable of grasping where we should be and what we should be aspiring for.

If we got these things right - and we should be able to - I think we’d live in a much more healthy society.