 |
 |
| » Home | » Speakers | » Press | » Junior Cafés | » Ideas |
· Ideas |
Cafés Scientifiques in Britain It is almost exactly five years since the first Café Scientifique was started in Britain. At that time we were not aware of any similar movement in France, so the idea seems to have been 'in the air', waiting to be developed, almost simultaneously, in different countries - rather like some scientific discoveries. At present there are fifteen active Cafés with new ones starting every month. This presentation will be an overview of the situation in Britain, and it will consist of three parts - a brief history, a guide to the present situation, and, since we are in France, a final section on philosophy. Let me start with a personal reminiscence of the first Café, which started in a local wine-bar. The speaker was a local philosopher who had criticised the idea of 'The Selfish Gene', by Richard Dawkins, and instead argued that culture was more important than genetics in understanding humans. I had no idea how many people might turn up and I was pleasantly surprised to see over 30 people there. But my pleasure turned to horror when the speaker came out with a lot of quasi-academic jargon, as though lecturing to an audience of students. I thought the evening was going to be a disaster. However, after a break for drinks, during the questions and answers, the evening began to get interesting. The questions were thoughtful, personal and direct, unlike much academic dialogue, and the speaker began to understand the audience and at the same time he had to think on his feet, rather than repeat a set of fixed ideas. By the end of the night there was a mutual respect between speaker and audience, although not necessarily any mutual agreement. I had learned the following lessons. First the topic has to be controversial and engaging for the audience, also one the speaker is prepared to defend to the death. Second the only purpose of the speaker's talk is to provide the audience with enough information for them to ask intelligent questions and so promote a dialogue and discussion. Third a break for drinks after the talk allows the audience time to chat together, and even if they say "I didn't understand a word of that", it gives them confidence to question the speaker on their own terms, and not pretend to understand in order to impress. At the end of the evening, when a number of people said "When's the next one?" I realised that this format had a future. Quite early on we received considerable press interest, ranging from daily newspapers, through the scientific press, like Nature, to magazines like The Big Issue. This was partly because of a crisis of confidence in science Britain, due to the mishandling of BSE and worries about food safety. Indeed a government report stated 'Society's relationship with science is in a critical phase. This crisis of confidence is of great importance both to British society and British science'. Up till then 'this crisis of confidence' had been blamed on the public, and the scientific institutions had set up COPUS, the Committee for the Public Understanding of Science. It assumed that what was required was more public education in science and that a scientifically literate public would be more sympathetic to scientists. However it was becoming clear that the problem was more complex than this - in many cases (like nuclear power) the more the public knew the more sceptical they became. The time was ripe for new initiatives. So it was relatively easy to get funding. First in 1999 the Millenium Fund financed two separate weeks of talks, one on Science and Science Fiction and another on Science and Society. Then in 2001 the Wellcome Trust financed a 3 year grant to expand the cafes throughout the UK, so we now have a project co-ordinator - Teresa Anderson - and her assistant Amanda Tyndall, each working part time to set up new cafes. How does it work? Well each new Café is completely independent and self-financing, although the organisers get help to find speakers, a suitable location and some initial funding for publicity. We have a national website at www.cafescientifique.org, which provides contacts, a background and also the dates and subjects of current meetings. Each Café has an e-mail list of people who wish to be informed about meetings, which are usually held once a month. The format is usually the same - one speaker for about 20 minutes, a break for drinks and then questions and discussion for around 45 minutes. The speakers are not paid a fee, but their expenses are paid for either by a collection or by a charge for entrance. Individual Cafés can take initiatives when they see fit. Within the last year their has been a series of talks on Science, Business and Society in Leeds, and Science, Politics and Society at Edinburgh, as well as a conference on the anniversary of DNA in Cambridge and a series of similar talks in Nottingham. Meanwhile we are interested in forming links with European Cafés. In addition the British Council has adapted the Café formula to communicate with underdeveloped countries, using a video-link. In this case the scientist is in Britain and the chairperson and audience are abroad. My view is that these Cafés are not like the scientific societies of the 19th century. The audience does not come for self-improvement or to be lectured to. It comes to participate. Within the last twenty years science has started to give a coherent account of human nature, through genetics, neurology, pharmacology and evolutionary psychology. This is very different from the account we previously got from culture, about free-will, emotion, thinking and identity. People are aware of this and are concerned about it, as it affects the way we think of ourselves. The public wants to be informed, but also want to discuss the consequences, and very often the Cafés provide the most interesting and agreeable opportunity for this. This is a key reason for their popularity and expansion. One recent development in the UK has been that COPUS has been quietly disbanded as "the top down approach is no longer suitable for today's problems". The scientific institutions, quite rightly, have an agenda to defend science but people have become distrustful of that. Café Scientifique, on the other hand is 'bottom up' and is unique because the agenda is driven by members of the public, rather than scientists or scientific institutions. The aim is to create a network, not another hierarchy. Today the discussion of science is almost as important as the science itself. The Café Scientifique is not confrontational, but it does not need to take science on its own terms. It looks at science from the outside, and, if it has an agenda, then it is one of engagement and enquiry. It provides a platform where people can ask difficult questions, about ideas, issues, funding, motives or whatever. While the Café Scientifique is not a solution to the problems of Science and Society it goes some way to empowering people to speak and to providing an opportunity for scientists to gain the respect of the public, and vice versa. The relation between science and society is changing fast, and these are interesting times we live in. Looking ahead, I foresee that the Cafés may be seen as useful by governments and scientific institutions, committed, as they say they are, to transparency and accountability. It is important that the Cafés retain their independence and diversity and resist the temptation to become a tool of scientific or political interests. · Talk given by Duncan Dallas at the conference of the Bars des Zincs in Paris, May 2003 |
