Author: Steve Miller – University College London, United Kingdom

Co-authors:

  • Ka’iu Kimura – ‘Imiloa Astronomy Education Center, Hilo, Hawai’i, United States

The future of Mauna Kea – a mountain sacred to many native Hawai’ians – is now the site of a major demonstration / occupation in protest against the decision to allow the building of the Thirty Meter Telescope close to the summit. Although the courts have cleared the way for construction to begin, native Hawai’ian kia’i (protectors) and their supporters have blocked the access road to the mountain, claiming that the summit has been mismanaged for over 40 years since the first telescopes were erected and used there. They feel that yet another telescope adds to the “desecration” that has already been committed.

Supporters of the telescope – including many other native Hawai’ians and leaders of tradition-preserving organisations such as the Polynesian Voyaging Society – point out that astronomy is in the blood of the maka’ainana (people): spreading out from central Polynesia to the corners of the Polynesian triangle (Hawai’i, Aotearoa / New Zealand and Rapa Nui / Easter Island) would not have been possible without a deep understanding of the stars, their positions and how they moved in the night sky. They see the Mauna Kea observatory not as a sacrilege but as a natural extension of the voyaging traditions of the islands.

The ‘Imiloa Astronomy Education Center – with its focus on all aspects of Mauna Kea, astronomy and voyaging – sees the mountain as a boundary object that can bring people together in a place of “safe disagreement”, whatever their views. Founded in 2006, the Center runs programs and planetarium shows that emphasise what cultures have in common rather than what divides them. This talk will highlight the work done by the Center in an atmosphere of profound disagreement.

The author has not yet submitted a copy of the full paper.

Presentation type: Individual paper
Theme: Transformation

Author: Steve Miller – University College London, United Kingdom

Co-authors:

  • Martin Bauer – LSE, United Kingdom
  • Luisa Massarani – House of Oswaldo Cruz, Brazil
  • Bernard Schiele – UQAM, Canada
  • Melanie Smallman – UCL, United Kingdom

It is now 35 years since the Royal Society – the UK’s premier science organisation – published its report “The Public Understanding of Science”. 1985 in Britain was the middle of the “Thatcher years”, a time when science – particularly “blue skies” science – felt itself to be under attack. The Royal Society deemed that public ignorance of and indifference to science had to be addressed.

The report – also known as the Bodmer Report after its chair Sir Walter Bodmer – ushered in a flurry of initiatives: scientists were told they had a duty to communicate with their fellow citizens, media outlets were urged to carry more science in their pages or on the airwaves, prizes for good science communication were set up, university students and researchers were provided with courses, and Members of Parliament and Ministers were advised / lobbied on behalf of the scientific enterprise in general and individual projects in particular.

A lot of this activity was criticised as adopting a “deficit model” agenda of citizen ignorance as against more nuanced “contextual approach” involving the science people needed to live their daily lives. “Science and/in/with/etc Society” became the rallying cry.

But what has really been achieved and changed a generation on from Bodmer? Is it a case of “every attempt is a wholly new start, and a different kind of failure” (TS Eliot The Four Quartets, East Coker, 1941). And was Bodmer’s influence restricted to the UK and/or the English-speaking world? This round-table will discuss “The Public Understanding of Science – a generation on” with a UK and international panel.

This Roundtable Discussion will be linked to the new PCST book, “The Emerging of Modern Science Communication”.

The author has not yet submitted a copy of the full paper.

Presentation type: Roundtable discussion
Theme: Transformation

Author: Steve Miller – University College London, United Kingdom

Co-authors:
Marina Joubert – Stellenbosch University
Pedro Russo – University of Leiden
Tibisay Sankatsing Nava – University of Leiden

Considerable efforts have been put into understanding how different publics make sense of matters scientific (broadly understood) and how they relate to their existing systems of knowledge and belief. Practices in science communication and engagement have been developed to allow for these varied understandings and to enable ordinary citizens to participate in projects and decisions that involve considerable input from science.

A lot of this work, however, has been concentrated on situations where both the scientific community and their fellow citizens have similar cultural backgrounds, and where there is at least some consensus that science is “a good thing”, in terms of problem solving and economic and social well-being. Increasingly, however, the science communication community is facing situations where shared cultural backgrounds and beliefs cannot be assumed.

These two linked sessions set out to explore these situations, to exchange ideas and noteworthy practices, and to deepen the understanding of the PCST community itself on what it means to communicate about science “across” cultures. This second of the two sessions looks at a number of case studies including from the Caribbean and South Africa.

The author has not yet submitted a copy of the full paper.

Presentation type: Grouped paper
Theme: Society
Area of interest: Comparing science communication across cultures

Author: Steve Miller – University College London. United Kingdom

Co-authors:
Kalepa Baybayan – Polynesia Voyaging Society
Caroline Cook – Otago Museum
Nancy Longnecker – University of Otago
Steven Tingay – Curtin University

Considerable efforts have been put into understanding how different publics make sense of matters scientific (broadly understood) and how they relate to their existing systems of knowledge and belief. Practices in science communication and engagement have been developed to allow for these varied understandings and to enable ordinary citizens to participate in projects and decisions that involve considerable input from science.

A lot of this work, however, has been concentrated on situations where both the scientific community and their fellow citizens have similar cultural backgrounds, and where there is at least some consensus that science is “a good thing”, in terms of problem solving and economic and social well-being. Increasingly, however, the science communication community is facing situations where shared cultural backgrounds and beliefs cannot be assumed.

These two linked sessions set out to explore these situations, to exchange ideas and noteworthy practices, and to deepen the understanding of the PCST community itself on what it means to communicate about science “across” cultures.

Given the location of PCST2018 in Aotearoa (New Zealand), the South-Western point of the “Polynesian Triangle”, the first of these two sessions particularly features science communication in a Polynesian context. And there will, for at least part of this session, be a concentration on astronomy and its relationship with the people and peopling of Polynesia.

The author has not yet submitted a copy of the full paper.

Presentation type: Grouped paper
Theme: Society
Area of interest: Comparing science communication across cultures