Recently the British Academy hosted a fascinating event it had jointly organised with SAGE publishers, as part of the Economic and Social Research Council’s Festival of Social Science. The panel – two social scientists, a politician and a civil servant – were brought together to answer the question ‘How Can Social Scientists and Government Work Together to Strengthen Public Trust in Scientific Evidence?’
Insightful from the start, chair Evan Davies raised two issues that proved to be key throughout the discussion. First was the importance (or not) of the (in)distinction between science and social science, as phrased in the question. Jenny Dibden noted that the natural sciences enjoy a more ‘cut and dried’ image in the public eye than social sciences, which are considered more subjective. This may be true – and other speakers (notably Professor Anthony Heath) argued for changes within social science to present hypotheses with appropriate qualifications for their significance, including ‘notes for caution’ as used in the medical sciences.
This underpinned Evan Davies’ second point, which was that social scientists also had to earn public trust, not just convince ‘the public’ to bestow it. Terms like ‘arrogance’ and ‘honesty’ were used – on this occasion for social scientists rather than politicians – and there was consensus that public trust in scientific evidence could only be encouraged if it was deserved. In a cyclical manner, public trust in scientific evidence makes for better social scientific evidence in itself, since accurate hypotheses depend on a willing and broad participant body to ensure the best data.
The relationship between politicians and scientific evidence formed more of the debate than its title might have predicted. A range of experiences was covered, from the ideal - where thorough social scientific evidence was used centrally in government policy - to an unduly trusting use of dubious research. Research is also sometimes used selectively, or purposefully ignored due to political expedience or because of wider considerations for the ‘public good’ (as, albeit debatably, David Nutt’s findings on cannabis). The upshot was that social science research should not be the be all and end all of policy, but neither should politicians be able to ignore flagrantly good research without justifying why.
Likewise the question of whether social scientists had a general political leaning, akin to that (for example) of journalists, was raised. Despite a passionate defence from Dr Alice Bell for the need for more debate between different perspectives the tacit agreement was that academic social scientists did represent, on the whole, a centre-left viewpoint. It reminded me of the homogeneity of political views I observed at the last general election amongst fellow postgraduates (mostly within Arts and Humanities, admittedly) – not evidence that would stand up in a peer-reviewed journal, of course, but anecdotally – who almost all favoured the Liberal Democrats. As we know, this is not even slightly representative of the nation as a whole. I was struck at the time by the immeasurable significance of such a leaning for the (surely narrower) scope of research.
To return to the broader question, the issue of public trust in (social) scientific evidence is a fascinating one, especially in light of recent trends in popular culture. There is certainly no lack of appetite amongst ‘the public’ for social observation; it forms the basis of countless mainstream popular entertainment shows, documentaries and, now, docu-soaps. Whether this represents a desire to engage critically with social issues and scientific research on these is another question, but surely ‘popular’ interest could be channelled. Perhaps the social sciences need their Brian Cox.
Whatever the case, there is work to be done. Politicians need to be encouraged to base their sound bites on more than observation and vote-winning strategy alone. To help force this issue, social scientists (as demanded from within their own ranks) need to continue to work towards rigorous, transparent and timely research, and resist over-claiming from their results (perhaps the Impact agenda is unhelpful in this respect). Above all, ‘the public’ should not be underestimated; there is a willing and interested audience in social issues. Communication, especially to our as yet non-voting children, is the key.
Faye Taylor
King George VI Fellow
Cumberland Lodge
