6 Building Bridges to Science: Making Coastal Science Better Understood
57
ing processes for development projects, the nature of environmental science communication, the role of scientists as translators, and public attitudes to science and scientists. First, the actual levels of understanding of environmental principles and processes amongst the public, decision-makers and practitioners in cognate fields of study
are complicated by the extent to which existing knowledge is uncertain or contains a
heavy reliance on statements of probability. Despite public involvement in gambling,
the concept of probability applied to scientific data is poorly understood and leads
to serious misunderstandings. Two particular areas of difficulty are the use of return
periods and understanding of relative magnitudes, for example in the case of sea
level rise as compared to extreme wave heights. In order for decision-making to be
carried out effectively, there is often a need to provide simple correct explanations of
complex and changing phenomena, together with indications of the level of certainty
which can be given to the information. However, the scientific methods themselves are
uncertain because of the partial nature of data and the acceptance of probability. It is
very rare for scientists to provide unequivocal answers to questions - that is not the
nature of science. There is an urgent need for science to be presented clearly (Pollock
and Steven 1997), whilst recognising that development decisions will be made, however
partial the scientific evidence. Use of the precautionary principle is often supported,
but this itself is often poorly explained or open to different interpretations.
Second, there are problems with the decision-making process for scientists and others dealing with development projects. Decisions are characteristically made (in Western democracies at least) by committees of elected representatives (who are often not
experts) advised by professional officers. The latter may have the task of interpreting
detailed technical reports produced by consultants. The same information chain often
exists in project development in developing countries where there are different traditions of decision-making. Knowledge may be exchanged by oral means with an holistic
rather than sectoral view. Environmental knowledge may be held by local communities
(for example artisinal fishermen) but not in a form familiar or acceptable to many
scientists.
Third, there is a need for greatly improved scientific communication, especially as
many large-scale projects involve many disciplines. As Berridge (quoted in Wolpert
and Richards 1997) has pointed out, the task of good science is to make connections
between different ideas, and different disciplines. This requires the construction of "social bridges", because public attitudes are complicated by the need for scientists to "translate" their findings even to other scientists (Uglow 1996).As a result, scientific information is often communicated in familiar language which lacks precision, may depend
upon the use of analogies and is full of unscientific resonances (Greenlaw 1996). At its
worst, the public has an image of "irresponsible creativity by science that refuses to
think of consequences" (Belton 1996, p 263).
Fourth, the recent increase in scientists as media personalities and the growth of
popul~r scientific writing may have made science more interesting, but it has not removed this inherent mistrust of scientists. As scientific certainties are shown to be
fallible or at worst even dishonest, people show a growing tendency to be attracted to
the non-scientific or untested explanations of phenomena, as witnessed by the growth
of interest in para-normal phenomena. The search is not so much for understanding,
but for explanations. The problem seems to arise from a confusion between science,
whose role is to tell us what will happen and why, and policy which determines what
57
ing processes for development projects, the nature of environmental science communication, the role of scientists as translators, and public attitudes to science and scientists. First, the actual levels of understanding of environmental principles and processes amongst the public, decision-makers and practitioners in cognate fields of study
are complicated by the extent to which existing knowledge is uncertain or contains a
heavy reliance on statements of probability. Despite public involvement in gambling,
the concept of probability applied to scientific data is poorly understood and leads
to serious misunderstandings. Two particular areas of difficulty are the use of return
periods and understanding of relative magnitudes, for example in the case of sea
level rise as compared to extreme wave heights. In order for decision-making to be
carried out effectively, there is often a need to provide simple correct explanations of
complex and changing phenomena, together with indications of the level of certainty
which can be given to the information. However, the scientific methods themselves are
uncertain because of the partial nature of data and the acceptance of probability. It is
very rare for scientists to provide unequivocal answers to questions - that is not the
nature of science. There is an urgent need for science to be presented clearly (Pollock
and Steven 1997), whilst recognising that development decisions will be made, however
partial the scientific evidence. Use of the precautionary principle is often supported,
but this itself is often poorly explained or open to different interpretations.
Second, there are problems with the decision-making process for scientists and others dealing with development projects. Decisions are characteristically made (in Western democracies at least) by committees of elected representatives (who are often not
experts) advised by professional officers. The latter may have the task of interpreting
detailed technical reports produced by consultants. The same information chain often
exists in project development in developing countries where there are different traditions of decision-making. Knowledge may be exchanged by oral means with an holistic
rather than sectoral view. Environmental knowledge may be held by local communities
(for example artisinal fishermen) but not in a form familiar or acceptable to many
scientists.
Third, there is a need for greatly improved scientific communication, especially as
many large-scale projects involve many disciplines. As Berridge (quoted in Wolpert
and Richards 1997) has pointed out, the task of good science is to make connections
between different ideas, and different disciplines. This requires the construction of "social bridges", because public attitudes are complicated by the need for scientists to "translate" their findings even to other scientists (Uglow 1996).As a result, scientific information is often communicated in familiar language which lacks precision, may depend
upon the use of analogies and is full of unscientific resonances (Greenlaw 1996). At its
worst, the public has an image of "irresponsible creativity by science that refuses to
think of consequences" (Belton 1996, p 263).
Fourth, the recent increase in scientists as media personalities and the growth of
popul~r scientific writing may have made science more interesting, but it has not removed this inherent mistrust of scientists. As scientific certainties are shown to be
fallible or at worst even dishonest, people show a growing tendency to be attracted to
the non-scientific or untested explanations of phenomena, as witnessed by the growth
of interest in para-normal phenomena. The search is not so much for understanding,
but for explanations. The problem seems to arise from a confusion between science,
whose role is to tell us what will happen and why, and policy which determines what