58
C. Heeps . V. May
should happen. Scientists and non-scientists alike are involved in the shaping of policy,
even though many scientists cling to a view that they should remain uninvolved. However, Durant (1997) has indicated that when dealing with complex environmental issues, the judgement of non-scientists is often very similar to that of scientists. This is
both worrying and helpful, for it suggests that people's innate understanding of their
environment and how it works is strong, and that scientific analysis of the problems
often supports this understanding. It challenges scientists to be less arrogant about
their expertise!
Fifth, difficulties arise from the way in which scientific information is promulgated.
The public have become confused because science is commonly used by politicians,
media and NGOs to support particular points-of-view and so can be viewed as propaganda. Furthermore, in common law jurisdictions such as in the USA and Britain the
information can be challenged in courts of law and may be shown to be incomplete or
open to debate. This is especially so when predictions have been made, the magnitude
of problems has been overemphasised and in effect the community has "cried wolf".
The environmental movement has been particularly prone to produce forecasts of forthcoming doom or ecological collapse. For example, oil spillages attract massive media
attention, often accompanied by predictions of ecological disaster, and yet some coastal
ecosystems have appeared to be remarkably resilient. The example of the Braer oil spill
off the coast of Shetland in 1992 demonstrates that apparent recovery within relatively
short time scales can occur. Furthermore, some NGOs have become more businesslike, their survival depending on maintenance of their public image. Cynics might argue that some make the worst of problems in order to ensure their survival rather than
presenting solutions to the issue. There is often a perceived need to act even when
scientific information is very limited. Action is taken on a cause-and-effect basis without much attention to either the complexity of systems, local conditions or the effects
of public reaction. As a result, short-term reactions to a problem can produce a
"Verschlimmbesserung" effect, i.e. the problem is worsened by action which it was believed would make the situation better.
Academia is often considered to be in the most prominent position to improve public understanding of science but historically does not have a good track record of community outreach. Although there is an element of trust in the science this is not always
matched by the public trust of the scientists. What is important is that the public is
brought into the discussion and debate that scientists are able to generate. Much information aimed at the public about environmental issues is delivered by the media who
may gather and manipulate their information from a variety of disparate and often
conflicting sources. At a more local level visitor centres playa vital role in increasing
the public understanding of science because it is here that the public often have their
first structured introduction to the marine environment. Thus, the general public tend
to rely upon not only the media but also public environmental organisations (such as
National Parks or local authority environmental services), local wildlife organisations,
or NGOs/pressure groups running campaigns, for information. Industry turns to its
own experts and advisors, professional institutions or to links with academia. Consequently there is still a need to improve vertical and horizontal communication and
exchange of scientific information between industry and engineers, coastal scientists,
decision-makers, the media and coastal user groups.
C. Heeps . V. May
should happen. Scientists and non-scientists alike are involved in the shaping of policy,
even though many scientists cling to a view that they should remain uninvolved. However, Durant (1997) has indicated that when dealing with complex environmental issues, the judgement of non-scientists is often very similar to that of scientists. This is
both worrying and helpful, for it suggests that people's innate understanding of their
environment and how it works is strong, and that scientific analysis of the problems
often supports this understanding. It challenges scientists to be less arrogant about
their expertise!
Fifth, difficulties arise from the way in which scientific information is promulgated.
The public have become confused because science is commonly used by politicians,
media and NGOs to support particular points-of-view and so can be viewed as propaganda. Furthermore, in common law jurisdictions such as in the USA and Britain the
information can be challenged in courts of law and may be shown to be incomplete or
open to debate. This is especially so when predictions have been made, the magnitude
of problems has been overemphasised and in effect the community has "cried wolf".
The environmental movement has been particularly prone to produce forecasts of forthcoming doom or ecological collapse. For example, oil spillages attract massive media
attention, often accompanied by predictions of ecological disaster, and yet some coastal
ecosystems have appeared to be remarkably resilient. The example of the Braer oil spill
off the coast of Shetland in 1992 demonstrates that apparent recovery within relatively
short time scales can occur. Furthermore, some NGOs have become more businesslike, their survival depending on maintenance of their public image. Cynics might argue that some make the worst of problems in order to ensure their survival rather than
presenting solutions to the issue. There is often a perceived need to act even when
scientific information is very limited. Action is taken on a cause-and-effect basis without much attention to either the complexity of systems, local conditions or the effects
of public reaction. As a result, short-term reactions to a problem can produce a
"Verschlimmbesserung" effect, i.e. the problem is worsened by action which it was believed would make the situation better.
Academia is often considered to be in the most prominent position to improve public understanding of science but historically does not have a good track record of community outreach. Although there is an element of trust in the science this is not always
matched by the public trust of the scientists. What is important is that the public is
brought into the discussion and debate that scientists are able to generate. Much information aimed at the public about environmental issues is delivered by the media who
may gather and manipulate their information from a variety of disparate and often
conflicting sources. At a more local level visitor centres playa vital role in increasing
the public understanding of science because it is here that the public often have their
first structured introduction to the marine environment. Thus, the general public tend
to rely upon not only the media but also public environmental organisations (such as
National Parks or local authority environmental services), local wildlife organisations,
or NGOs/pressure groups running campaigns, for information. Industry turns to its
own experts and advisors, professional institutions or to links with academia. Consequently there is still a need to improve vertical and horizontal communication and
exchange of scientific information between industry and engineers, coastal scientists,
decision-makers, the media and coastal user groups.