Executive summary
Public engagement is an essential part of the research lifecycle. It should be acknowledged as such, and researchers in academia, industry and the third sector should be supported, protected and rewarded for doing it well.
There are threats to science from financial pressures. Opportunities to engage, such as science centres, science festivals, and university-based engagement projects, are under threat owing to lack of resources and accurate online content is increasingly eclipsed by misinformation. Ideological agendas are being used to suppress research, threaten academic freedom, and cut funding. Scientific evidence and those who advocate for it are under attack by those who wish to undermine rational debate. Platforms that should facilitate open, transparent debate are giving free rein to harmful misinformation and ideological attacks on people and ideas. Equality is under attack and that threatens our global community of scientists. To counter these threats, science should be viewed as a vital part of how society works and be made available to everyone.
The ‘public’ is not one uniform group of people. It is made up of individuals and communities of which everyone is a part at one point or another in our lives. The Public attitudes to science (PAS) data show that the public are largely still very supportive (), but this cannot be taken for granted. Science is impossible without a licence to operate (in political, financial and ethical terms) and needs to be done in partnership with the public.
The UK research community views public engagement positively, but is not always given the stability, time, skills, confidence, protections, support, or money to do it well. It should not be seen as an ‘extra’ on top of research and teaching commitments, it should be recognised as a vital part of research and pedagogical culture.
Scientists and researchers at multiple career levels can make a meaningful difference in how science and society interact by acting as individuals or as part of large research groups. While not all researchers are confident, or indeed equipped, to undertake public engagement, providing the support for those who want to engage is important. The UK government needs to invest in training and development for scientists and researchers and support them to engage meaningfully in whichever way is most appropriate for them, for the people they are working with and for their science.
As with the ‘public’, researchers and scientists are not a uniform group; different disciplines and different working environments mean that engagement will look different in different situations. How different engagement models fit with different ‘modes’ of knowledge creation needs to be considered ().
Why the Royal Society is making recommendations and why now?
Public engagement is an essential part of the scientific process. It should be seen as an investment for the future of the UK, and engagement practitioners should be viewed as a vital component in the scientific workforce. High quality engagement allows UK science to maintain a public mandate for science spending, builds trust in science, makes a case for the existence of universities and research institutes and provides ways for the public to access scientific information in a world of increasing misinformation. In challenging financial situations, it is all too easy to cut support for engagement activities. The Royal Society argues that this short-term solution to financial pressures could result in long-term damage to the connections between society and science. While acknowledging current economic and financial challenges, this report examines where funders of scientific research, government, media organisations and others might prioritise spending on support for high-quality public engagement with science. This report also discusses the potential benefits of developing stronger philanthropic links within the science communication and public engagement sector.
Transparency and trustworthiness are essential. The public expect and want scientists to be open and transparent about the work they do, and to engage directly with the public, especially around ethical and societal implications arising from their work. To meet this expectation, the independence of scientific advice in government must be protected, scientists in industry must be supported, and all scientists given opportunities to connect with the public in new, improved, and meaningful ways.
The UK has made great progress in building engagement opportunities, but risks taking a backstep. Since 1985, multiple sectors have collaborated to build significant infrastructure, such as science centres and festivals, and capacity for meaningful interactions between science and society. While the Society acknowledges the need to adapt and explore new models of engagement that fit current realities, losing this capacity and infrastructure is a significant risk and would cause lasting damage to both science and society.
Artificial intelligence (AI) threatens to disrupt established ways of engaging. When the original Bodmer report was published in 1985, the internet existed, but the effect it would have on how everyone communicates could not have been fully predicted. This report faces the same unknown future with AI. The Society knows that AI will change how information is created and shared, but we do not know exactly what the future will look like. One thing we do know is that critical thinking skills, being able to question evidence, being able to create and test hypotheses and an awareness of the merits of the scientific method will continue to be essential life skills for everyone.
Science underpins innovation and technological advancement. This drives productivity, which in turn boosts wages. Science-led innovation also benefits the economy indirectly, by contributing to national security, environmental protection and public health. Public confidence in science is essential for economic growth, which (in its broadest sense) relies on positive interactions between society and science ().
