Editorial: A decade of Public Understanding

Abstract

With this issue, the journal Public Understanding of Science begins its second decade. Such a milestone deserves some comment, a moment for assessing where we've been and where we might go. Founding editor John Durant began this journal because of his conviction that an outlet was needed for the increasing number of research studies that examined issues associated with the public's interaction with science. 1 Unlike other publications devoted to increasing public understanding (whatever that might mean) or to providing comment on public interactions with science, we are fundamentally a scholarly journal, committed to publishing research-based material that will enhance communal knowledge about the nature of public interaction with science. Our growth over the decade confirms Durant's original belief: we have both studies to publish and an audience interested in that work. We have other markers of success as well. The most recent Journal Citation Reports published by the Institute for Scientific Information (for the year 2000) indicates that articles from Public Understanding of Science were cited more than 150 times that year. While that number puts us only in the middle of the 43 ``communication'' journals, we rank fourth in the ``impact factor'' for that category, above such frequently cited journals as Public Opinion Quarterly, Journal of Communication , and Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly , as well as more specialty journals including ones frequently used by our own colleagues and authors, such as Health Communication and Science Communication . As befits a multidisciplinary, multi-perspectival journal such as ours, we also appear in the JCR 's ``history and philosophy of science'' category, where our total citations again put us about halfway down the list of 28 journals. But also again the impact factor is much higher - we are third highest in impact, following only Social Studies of Science and Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science . Many of the contributors to this journal will be quick to note the limitations of quantitative data. For them, we have other markers. First is the anecdotal data, such as the messages that come in saying ``I've just learned of your journal and it's exactly what I'm looking for!'' or the report from a colleague visiting India that his hosts immediately asked, ``Isn't Public Understanding of Science edited at your school?'' But most interesting, I think, is our place in Daniel Greenberg's new book, Science, Money, and Politics (reviewed later in this issue). 2 Greenberg, a science journalist since the late 1950s and the longtime editor and publisher of the highly-regarded newsletter Science and Government Report , devotes two full chapters to the scientific community's use of ``public understanding of science.'' He identifies in the United States - as many of our readers and contributors have identified earlier in Europe - a ``public understanding of science'' movement that equates better ``understanding'' with better public support of unfettered government financing for basic scientific research. 3 He is sharply critical of this position, arguing that ``whatever is meant by public understanding of science, no evidence is offered, because none exists, of a consistent relationship, negative or positive, between public understanding of the whole or parts of science and the provision of public money for research.'' As part of his indictment, Greenberg notes a bit scornfully that ``academic respectability for the public-understanding movement is certified by a quarterly international scholarly journal, Public Understanding of Science , edited at Cornell University and published jointly by the U.K. Institute of Physics and The Science Museum, London.'' 4 That's us! Notice in a broad discussion of science and society constitutes a kind of success. Unfortunately, I think Greenberg has missed the point of much of the work in the journal, and that thought tempers the success a bit. While we have certainly published many articles based on the assumption that better understanding leads to greater support, we have also published a great many articles critical of what is now called the ``deficit model.'' 5 We have published and will continue to publish detailed methodological explorations of the measurement of science literacy, and the associated questions of public attitudes toward science and public support for science. 6 Yet we have also published - and again will continue to publish - detailed studies showing the complexity of public interactions with science, interactions that cannot easily be categorized into ``doesn't know much'' vs. ``supports science.'' Instead, these cases have demonstrated the multitude of publics who use scientific information (or information that they define as scientific) and with which the scientific community interacts, publics who make meaning of science only in specific local contexts, often dealing with uncertain knowledge, policy (and political) decisions, and the enduring tensions between ``expert'' and ``lay'' perspectives. 7 In dialectic with the ``deficit model,'' we now have ``contextual'' models and ``lay knowledge'' models and other new perspectives still being developed. As a journal, we have been and will remain a place where the conversation among these models can take place, and where empirically-based scholarly work will be welcomed regardless of philosophical perspective. Though we exist in time alongside a ``movement,'' Public Understanding of Science itself is of no movement but that which seeks greater exploration of the social world in which we live. Moving forward, we must become more successful at making that independence clear and at making the diversity of the field accessible to all of our audiences. Clearly we will build on a wonderfully strong base. Scanning the contents of the journal's first decade, I am struck by the range of topics we have covered. We have had special issues on Chernobyl, on the public's relationship with genetics, on global climate change, and on the Human Genome Project, as well as many individual articles on those topics. 8 We have looked at newspaper content, television content, magazine content, movie content, museum content. 9 We have explored traditional scholarly issues of gender, race, and rhetoric. 10 And we have been open to new topics, such as those brought on by cyberspace. 11 Nor have we shied away from controversy, from the overarching issues of the ``science wars'' between (mostly) physical scientists and sociologists of science, through the more detailed dissection of what counts as ``success'' in the burgeoning world of science museums. 12 Our quarterly bibliography (compiled by William Evans), the book reviews, and the practical perspectives point readers to yet more work in the field. I am especially proud that we have opened our pages to reports from diverse cultures and countries, exploring the meanings of science and public in Russia, China, Australia, India, the Czech and Slovak Republics, Portugal, and Japan, as well as the wealthy countries of western Europe and North America. 13 In the future, we must continue to bring in perspectives from around the world (including Africa, Latin America, and more of Asia, as well as the areas already represented), for science is one of the key players in globalization, and the nature of public engagement with scientific knowledge and science-based technologies and industries has and will continue to shape public reactions to globalizing forces. Such a quick summary of Public Understanding of Science 's first decade is clearly incomplete, and the topics cited above are just some of the many that together have made this journal a success. No potential contributor should assume that his or her topic is unwelcome. In the future, we will continue to seek out the best scholarship, whether historical analysis (which I, trained as a historian, would like to see more of) or contemporary cases, whether quantitative survey data or rhetorical textual analysis, whether focused on the images in public presentations or the responses to expert testimony - all topics that address the interrelationships between science and public are appropriate for this journal. I invite you to join me in enjoying them, arguing with them, learning from them. Bruce V. Lewenstein Ithaca, New York, USA New Year's Day, 2002 References [1] John Durant, ``Editorial,'' Public Understanding of Science 1, no. 1 (1992): 1-5. [2] Daniel S. Greenberg, Science, Money, and Politics: Political Triumph and Ethical Erosion (Chicago/London: Univ. Chicago Press, 2001). [3] Steve Miller, ``Critiques and contentions: Public understanding of science at the crossroads,'' Public Understanding of Science 10, no. 1 (2001): 115-20 (IOP Article)