Whether it’s public health, nuclear power, 5G, the management of our forests, GMOs or even artificial intelligence, today we have to make collective choices in scientific and technical matters. They will have major consequences in the short term and for future generations. Whatever the positions adopted, history will evaluate our decisions on the basis of our ability to identify the ethical, environmental and socio-economic issues of the problems posed, to anticipate crises and to propose solutions to avoid them or, at all the least, limit its effects.
If science does not participate in political decision-making, it undeniably draws up the field of possibilities according to the knowledge available and the research in progress at a given time. It is by tapping into this body of knowledge that democratic debate can thrive.
However, if for 50 years, the French have continued to place a high level of trust in science and scientists, they are now a minority to consider that the positive effects of scientific research outweigh the negative effects. It is therefore the effects of science on our living conditions that are in question, which raises the question of the democratic control of techno-scientific choices. Already, in 2016, an Ipsos survey showed that only 25% of respondents consider that French citizens are sufficiently informed and consulted on the debates and issues of research today.
Enlightened Citizenship
This observation challenges all actors of scientific and technical culture because they play a key role in the dissemination of the knowledge necessary for citizen involvement in the orientation of techno-scientific development. For more than half a century, these structures (mostly associations and public establishments) have accumulated considerable know-how in line with societal changes and have been able to play the role of trusted third parties to guarantee impartiality. indispensable for a constructive dialogue between scientists and their fellow citizens.
The offer, initially centered on science clubs and the various formulas of “science museums”, has expanded over time with, for example, discovery workshops, events, science cafés and, more recently, with exploring the links between art and science.
In recent years, taking advantage of the opportunities offered by digital technologies, they have affirmed their presence on social networks (podcast and web radio) and have offered their visitors new immersive or interactive experiences on major social issues, as evidenced by the performative installation “Becoming a plant: seeing through the body” recently produced by the Lieu multiple de Poitiers. Such an approach undoubtedly makes it possible to break with the sometimes austere image conveyed by scientific communication and thus to renew interest in scientific subjects, especially among the youngest.
Reach all audiences
But increasing and diversifying the offer is only one aspect of the response to the issues highlighted above. Feeding the debate on the environmental and socio-economic issues of science requires a finer preliminary knowledge of the expectations of the public. However, in terms of scientific culture, this public is segmented, it would be more appropriate to speak of “publics”.
Schematically, it breaks down into four major categories whose borders are not watertight. The school public of schools, colleges and high schools; the scientific leisure public (children, adults, families who take part in workshops and events); the informed public who, on a particular subject, seeks to enrich their knowledge, reinforce their commitment, and finally, the local or tourist public of culture lovers in the broad sense.
Each of these categories corresponds to an offer with variable content and geometry. For example, the School of DNA in Nîmes, inspired by the DNA Learning Center in New York, works with patient associations to explain what genetic diagnosis consists of and present advances in research. In other cases, citizens participate, according to a strict protocol, in the collection of scientific data which will then be processed and analyzed by professional researchers. The Participatory Species and Nature Observatory Portal (OPEN) lists more than 70,000 participants in the various research programs on biodiversity.
The most important issue without doubt today concerns the means to be implemented to reach people who do not feel concerned by scientific and technical subjects. This “non-public” should not be neglected because it obviously participates in the production of so-called “general” opinion. Seeking to understand the underlying reasons for this lack of interest, Olivier Las Vergnas suggests that it is not necessarily due to a lack of curiosity. It can hide “a learned resignation” for those who have not had a particular affinity with scientific disciplines during their schooling. Lack of interest in science can also be attributed to difficult, if not impossible, access to scientific dissemination channels due to geographical remoteness.
As we can see, the factors to be taken into account are multiple and complex, but their identification is undoubtedly essential to advance the dissemination of scientific culture.
Mediation work
Whatever the mode of mediation chosen, the participation of researchers in the design of the media is essential because it guarantees the quality of the information disseminated. Above all, the figure of the scientist can be embodied through a person who, thanks to his knowledge, his way of being and his passion for his job, arouses curiosity and stimulates discussion. Moreover, it is not uncommon for such encounters to trigger vocations because they contribute to questioning the stereotypes that hold back professional ambitions of young girls and, more generally, young people from the most modest social categories.
Perhaps it is also necessary to get rid of the idea that a scholarly and structured presentation, however brilliant, is enough to give a taste for science. Experiences such as those carried out around controversies within the framework of the Forccast program and “Where to land” from the Sciences Po Medialab show the interest of paying greater attention to the questions of the populations and carrying out, on this basis, a real work of mediation.
Unfortunately, in France, the teaching of the principles and methods of mediation is not systematically integrated into the training of researchers and teacher-researchers. Only a few universities such as Rennes 1 and Paris offer it in doctoral training. Failing this, the temporary hosting of researchers in institutions of scientific culture could be encouraged, following the example of what is proposed the San Francisco Exploratorium through its Osher Fellows Programbut initiatives of this kind are still very timid.
Despite all the efforts made since the 1970s, the actors of scientific culture still have many new formulas to invent to promote democratic debates on scientific and technical subjects. A more assertive presence in the territories is undoubtedly a way to explore. Through elected officials, associations, places of public reading and the educational world in the broad sense, many relays exist in the territories to identify expectations and structure an offer that corresponds to local concerns.
–
