Between 2010 and July 2015, a group of researchers at the Department of History and Philosophy of Science, University of Cambridge and the National Maritime Museum were engaged in an Arts & Humanities Research Council-funded project “The Board of Longitude 1714–1828: Science, innovation and empire in the Georgian world”. The project team included a dedicated Public Engagement Officer whose role was to engage audiences with the outputs of the research project.
The National Maritime Museum celebrated the 300 th anniversary of the 1714 Longitude Act with a major exhibition, Ships, Clocks & Stars: The Quest for Longitude, which told the story of the 18th century quest for longitude, alongside a series of longitude-themed events. To commemorate the same anniversary, NESTA launched the 2014 Longitude Prize, a challenge to find a solution to today’s equivalent of the longitude problem, with the problem chosen by a public vote. Using these two examples as a case study, I explore how history of science helps science communication organisations engage people with science, and vice versa.

In the past 25 years school-university partnerships have undergone a transition from ad hoc to strategic partnerships. Over the previous two-and-a-half-years we have worked in partnership with teachers and pupils from the Denbigh Teaching School Alliance in Milton Keynes, UK.
Our aims have been to encourage the Open University and local schools in Milton Keynes to value, recognise and support school-university engagement with research, and to create a culture of reflective practice.
Through our work we have noted a lack of suitable planning tools that work for researchers, teachers and pupils. Here we propose a flexible and adaptable metric to support stakeholders as they plan for, enact and evaluate direct and meaningful engagement between researchers, teachers and pupils. The objective of the metric is to make transparent the level of activity required of the stakeholders involved — teachers, pupils and researchers — whilst also providing a measure for institutions and funders to assess the relative depth of engagement; in effect, to move beyond the seductive siren of reach.

The organization and functioning of research have radically changed over the last 10 or 20 years, as a result of a determined political action. The activism of some scientists, during this period, has failed to significantly alter this trend. So far. Today, New Public Management is triumphant. It has been implemented by a category of former scientists who have become administrators, evaluators, organizers. As a result, the prime role of scientific publications is no longer to exchange scientific information but to allow a measure of scientific production, and to rank the principal investigators. Now, the massive use of numerical tools (impact factors, h index), allows policy makers and their collaborators to evaluate publications without reading them. In addition, researchers are told to work in a budgetarily stable system (or even a decreasing one), with internal dynamics that should make it increase exponentially. This has led to the development of precarious jobs. One day, this bubble will explode.

This commentary explores a traditionally supposed boundary between science and politics, with particular attention to activist scientists who engage in public communication. Work in fields like science and technology studies shows that framing this boundary in terms of epistemological rules fails. Boundaries dictating proper scientific activities are at best pragmatic, context-dependent, and fluid. Certainly, certain kinds of politics can undermine the integrity of scientific knowledge, but it is imperative to recognize that all science is political. As we see with activist climate scientists, certain scientific knowledge carries far-reaching political consequences. It is thus problematic to call for the “de-politicization” of science or science communication. A turn from epistemic to ethical concerns perhaps offers a more constructive way forward.

Knowledge is not static or unique. It can be exchanged between activists, academia and policy circles: from science to activism and from activism to science. Existing scientific knowledge is being used by activists to expose wrongdoings or improve practices and knowledge in environmental and health conflicts. Activists can either adopt scientific knowledge and data in their own argumentations or produce new scientific knowledge either by becoming scientists themselves or in co-operation with experts. Local and scientific knowledge is being combined to challenge government policies and the knowledge produced by corporate actors. Also explored is the figure of the expert-activist; with scientists becoming activists and vice versa, the boundaries between activists and scientists are increasingly blurry.

After being cosseted by the media for what they incorrectly considered to be a scientific feat, the author found himself widely boycotted by the more “responsible” media. The reason for this was his critical view of the evolution of science, which he felt had become a tool at the service of innovation, and, therefore, of industrial interests. The traditional image of science, which serves to help us to understand the world, still persists despite being perverted by commercial interests, because it is defended by naive people as well as by lobbies, themselves responsible for this debasement. Thus, the “militant” scientist is suspected of dishonourable behaviour and finds himself expelled from the “scientific community”, forced to express himself from the margins. As a result, a parallel world of information and debate is created, which presents truths different from those of the mainstream institutions.

The validity of citizen science conducted by community activists is often questioned because of the overt values that activists bring to their investigations. But value judgments are a necessary part of even the best academic science, and scientists whose findings suggest the need for policy action can learn from the example of citizen scientists. Communicating clearly about value judgments in science would give the public a better basis for distinguishing between responsible and irresponsible research on controversial issues.

Science and activism are terms which are usually seen as quite separate. Yet, they are inextricably linked, even more so as techno scientific progress permeates contemporary society. The five commentaries in this series provide insights for a discussion about how the (apparent) separation between “value laden” activism and “value free” science is in fact very thin, and how science communication can play a key role in ensuring reflexivity and self criticism in science.