Public Understanding of Science

“Golem science” is Harry Collins and Trevor Pinch's humanized image of science, filled with irresolution, that they wish to substitute for the “god-like” image of definitive knowledge characteristic of public presentations of science. This god-like image creates unrealistic expectations that fuel “anti-scientific” reactions when unmet. This paper argues that the “flip-flop” view set forth by Collins and Pinch is a deficit model that positions the public as sociologically incompetent. It reflects the dilemma of professional social scientists who deconstruct science whilst appealing to the authority of science. This dilemma is an outcome of a deeper tension within science between the universal status of knowledge claims and the particular, human conditions of knowledge production. Drawing on discursive (or rhetorical) psychology, I show that this tension plays out in the rhetorical organization of scientific discourse in the form of a characteristic contrast between empiricist and contingent repertoires. A similar tension is discernible in everyday, mundane reasoning, which suggests that a golem image of science is already present in commonsense understanding alongside the “god-like” image. Thus, the public understanding of science is dilemmatically constituted, providing the conditions of argumentation with science seen in “antiscience”—itself a “folk devil” and rhetorical label. The analysis in this paper is illustrated using the example of creationism, which arises from an argumentative engagement with science that draws on the resources provided by the dilemma of science in conjunction with other resources drawn from Christianity. There is no simple “flip-flop” here. Further research into rhetorical reasoning in public understanding is called for on the grounds that greater appreciation of this is needed alongside golem science to improve relations between scientists and the public.

A sample of 2129 pupils in the third through sixth years of Protestant and Catholic grammar schools in Northern Ireland completed an index concerned with attitudes towards creationism and evolutionary theory. The data demonstrate that among this age group in Northern Ireland, 48 percent accept the view that “God created the world as described in the Bible,” while 33 percent accept the view that “Science disproves the biblical account of creation.” Support for creationism is stronger among girls than boys, among Protestants than Catholics, and among third and fourth year students than fifth and sixth year students. The results have implications for understanding the conflict between science and religion and for both science educators and religious educators.

This paper describes an initial evaluation of the “Science on the Underground” project in London, United Kingdom. The project uses posters based on concept cartoons to raise interest and awareness, provoke follow-up action and raise understanding of science amongst passengers. The nature of the concept cartoons is described. A number of data collection methods were used in the evaluation, including interview, observation, analysis of media coverage, and analysis of web site comments. The conclusions are that the project has led to an encouraging level of awareness of and interest in the project and a limited degree of follow-up action. Insufficient data are available to draw conclusions about the impact on public understanding of science.

In this article, three different descriptions of curricula for scientific literacy (SL) are summarized, compared, and critically reviewed from the point of view of their suitability for all citizens. Science for All Americans, a publication of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, envisages giving every citizen a thorough exposure to the world of science, technology, and mathematics; the report Towards Scientific Literacy, published by the International Institute for Adult Literacy Methods, recommends a phenomenological approach to science designed to make science useful for people in their daily lives; and a similar curriculum, Minimum Science for Everybody, published by a voluntary organization in India, provides a detailed alternative conceptual framework for SL in which community traditions and knowledge systems are interfaced with science.

The three reports are seen to differ from one another not only in respect of the contents of the curricula recommended, but also in their approaches, and the world views underlying these different approaches are brought out. It is suggested that SL curricula in both “developed” and “developing” countries be reviewed in the light of the ideas contained in all three reports in accordance with the needs and circumstances of the people. The article argues for the need to review the nature of science from the perspective of the common citizen.