Does Popular Science Matter?

Tharan Suresh
2 min readJan 18, 2021

Traditionally, popular science is defined as an interpretation of science for a general audience. Scientific research is heavily focused on the most recent advances in science and communicated through scientific journals and conferences. The primary, if not the only audience, is the scientific community itself. On the other hand, popular science discusses science from a broader perspective using blogs, articles, podcasts, videos, and art, to name a few. It is critical for the general public to access scientific information as the application of research findings are for society’s benefit.

Science is very powerful, but very few understand its power in society, mostly because the scientific community’s information is opaque to the public and is hard to comprehend or perceived as magic spells. Popular science has the potential to bridge the gap between science and the general public. Once the significance of popular science is established, the way information is conveyed becomes critical.

Science boosters advocate science as public relations and measure the synchrony between scientists and the public’s priorities. Boosters believe that scientists should play a more significant role than just inform the people, they think they are entitled to make decisions for the people. Critics, on the other hand, appreciate science after critically analysing it. Critics believe that science should promote democratic engagement.

Boosters advocate for the PAST (Public Appreciation of Science and Technology) model, whereas the critics argue favouring the CUSP (Critical Understanding of Science in Public) model. The PAST model directs a one-way flow of information from the scientific community to the society, i.e., a linear process where scientists produce knowledge and absorb it. The PEST (Public Engagement with Science and Technology) model emphasises the need for a two-way conversation between science and society. The emphasis is less on informing but more on multidirectional experience with real dialogue. The CUSP model tells the reader about the nature of and working of science, elaborating on the formulation and implementation of ideas. It aims at integrating science with the general culture, where the public is informed about science with the ability to probe and criticise.

It is important to note that both boosters and critics are aimed at the lay audience and use these models to keep the public informed about science. Another significant factor is distinguishing ‘cold’ and ‘hot’ science as it helps maintain the information’s reliability while being socially constructed. Cold science is also known as textbook science, mainly because it is well established and accepted by the scientific community. Hot science is ‘science-in-the-making’, there is no consensus, and the right answer is yet to be found.

I believe the way of conveying scientific knowledge is of utmost importance, compared to the information itself. The reach of the information and its effectiveness depends on the way the story is communicated. Being the general public, it is our responsibility to critically analyse any information presented to us and take a stand on it.

Reference:

Perrault, S. (2013). Communicating popular science: From deficit to democracy.

--

--