Abstract
This article critically traces the development of science communication in China in the past 30 years. While confirming the tremendous progress Chinese science communicators have achieved in popularising science, it argues that the deficit model-based popularisation effort cannot meet the diversifying demands on science in Chinese society. Citing both recent science and technology controversies and active public participation in science pilot initiatives in China, this article concludes that science communication efforts in the country must be focused on constructive dialogues and public engagement with science.
Keywords
1. Introduction
Since China adopted reforms and an opening-up policy in the late 1970s, its science and technology (S&T) popularisation has kept a strong growth momentum. However, as the world’s second largest economy, China is increasingly diversifying and undergoing pressure for public participation in S&T issues of social concern including genetically modified (GM) crops, the pollution risk of new chemical plants, trash burning and food safety. To cope with the challenge, the current one-direction science popularisation must be replaced with more engagement practices that feature open and equal public dialogues and debates.
2. The national system of science popularisation
After the disastrous Cultural Revolution (1966–1976), Chinese policy makers and science communicators established a national system of science popularisation, enacted the world’s first law on the popularisation of S&T in 2002, and published the National Scheme for Scientific Literacy (2006–2010–2020) (State Council, 2006) in 2006 as an action agenda (Chen, Shi and Xu, 2009).
Huge efforts have been made to promulgate scientific knowledge (Figure 1). For example, between 1979 and 1988, more than 20,000 science education books were published (Zhang, 2001). From 2006 to 2010, the number of science museums increased from 250 nationwide to 581 (The Annual Report on Outline of National Scheme for Scientific Literacy, 2010 (hereafter abbreviated as Annual Report)).
China’s science popularisation expenditure in recent years.
Science in the media is also advanced. Hunan S&T News, a newspaper targeting the rural community based in the southern Chinese province of Hunan, and Shandong S&T News, based in the eastern Chinese province of Shandong, have seen record high subscriptions of nearly 2 million (Shen, 2002).
As a result, the proportion of Chinese citizens who have basic scientific literacy 1 increased from 1.44 per cent in 2001 to 3.27 per cent in 2010 ( Annual Report, 2010 ) (Table 1).
Surveys of scientific literacy (SL) in China commissioned by CAST.
Source: Ren and Zhai (2012: 169).
3. The deficit model and its challengers
The goals of the popularisation efforts are to improve the low scientific literacy of the Chinese citizens, shorten the gap between modernisation and public scientific literacy, and oppose superstitions ( Annual Report, 2010 ), which are very similar to the basic appeals of the deficit model long dominating science communication practice but now widely criticised in the field (Sturgis and Allum, 2004).
To an extent, the low scientific literacy level of the Chinese population – which is only 3.27 per cent despite a steady growth in recent years (China Research Institute for Science Popularisation (CRISP), 2012) – legitimises the deficit model-based massive popularisation campaign. However, similar to the population in the West, where the contaminated reputation of the sciences and the increasing demands on public research funding after World War II have led to rising science communication activities (Kurath and Gisler, 2009), the Chinese public is also beginning to question certain S&T issues and the appropriateness of research funding. Deficit model-based science popularisation is increasingly unable to address the situation.
Meanwhile, with new concepts of science communication (e.g., public understanding of science, public participation in S&T) being introduced into China, more and more Chinese scholars argue that the traditional science popularisation featuring scientists/communicators in a teaching function should be transformed into an interaction between scientists and citizens and the public participation in science (Wu, 2003).
4. Changing world
The official science communication organisations are slow to respond, partly because science has enjoyed an ideologically unchallengeable orthodoxy, as Guo Moruo, the long-time president of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, described: “only socialism can liberate science, and only on the basis of science, can we construct socialism” (Guo, 1978).
Despite its orthodoxy, the Chinese public have begun to question science and the people doing science. In late 2004, as agricultural scientists were expecting the upcoming commercialisation of GM rice, a cover story in the influential liberal newspaper Southern Weekend reported that scientists had tried to commercialise GM rice for their personal commercial interests (Liu, 2004). The story led to nationwide protests against the commercialisation and halted the process.
Following the GM rice controversy, media exposures of scandals in the Chinese science community (for example, see Jia, 2006) further created an image among the public that the noble scientists are not free from corruption.
Meanwhile, public interest in science ebbs. The more than a million subscriptions some S&T newspapers enjoyed in the 1980s rapidly shrank by 99 per cent while publishers cannot afford the economic losses in publishing science education books (Shen, 2002). In mass media, science reporting has suffered a steady decline, with a reducing number of articles published by the general press, news desks dedicated to science journalism being cut, and science pages abandoned (Huang and Wang, 2006; Jiang, 2007).
5. Inactive scientists and the costs
The declining readership and rising questioning of science have not pushed Chinese scientists to actively deal with the public.
An explorative online survey conducted recently of 380 scientists’ involvement in science popularisation shows that although more than 94 per cent of the scientists surveyed agree science popularisation is their social responsibility, the majority of them do not take any action. In 2009, 67.1 per cent of the respondents did not write any popular science article, 80.3 per cent did not participate in any interview in the mass media, while 70.3 per cent did not participate in any science popularisation event (Liu et al., 2011).
Whereas a few factors, such as scientists’ lack of communication skills, insufficient time and funding and no suitable channel, hinder Chinese scientists’ involvement (Liu et al., 2011), China’s top-down approaches in policy making and funding decisions have resulted in less necessity for the science community to win public support as their Western counterparts have to do. Many Chinese scientists also believe that the general public is not scientifically qualified to interactively discuss S&T issues. As a result, when S&T controversies arise, the science community either evades answering the public’s inquiries, or largely talks about the case in jargon with professional arrogance (Li, 2008).
However, as Brian Wynne (2001) pointed out, arguably the sceptical stance of the public is not due to public ignorance of scientific information and critical media reporting but rather a result of public mistrust of science, governments, and their official representatives. China has this situation too. The mass media actively report – in fact often catalyse – S&T controversies that spread widely thanks to the rising use of the Internet. And the public increasingly refuses the official scientific explanations in fields varying from GM crops, trash burning and construction of chemical plants to food safety (Jia and Tan, 2011).
6. Reasons for slow action
While appealing to scientists to “popularise” more, official Chinese science communicators are reluctant to get involved in any open debate on scientific controversies. Large-scale science education campaigns and exhibitions held during the S&T Week in May each year and Science Popularisation Day in September remain the dominant science communication forms, accounting for more than half of the nation’s expenditure in the field.
It is understandable that leaders of official science communication organs, like CAST, worry that organising or being involved in public debates could bring political risks. But given the fact that public protests against certain S&T issues already take place across China, and non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and activists – often not trained as scientists – are actively involved in the protests, avoiding the debates can only increase social tensions and result in the public not believing scientific evidence.
On the other hand, science-related topics could be a politically safe platform for the public participation in policy making. Indeed, in Europe, public participation initiatives have often focused on science and technology issues in recent years (Nielsen, Lassen and Sandøe, 2011).
7. Towards public engagement with science
Although China’s science communication organs have not implemented open debates, progress is visible.
Starting from early 2011, CAST and some of its local branches initiated regular meetings between scientists and journalists. These activities are different to previous forms of scientists’ involvement – formal lectures and popular science articles – in that they are more interactive and often linked to socially hot issues.
On the other hand, individual researchers and NGOs are engaging in pilot projects of public participation in science, including the country’s first pilot consensus conference in 2009 (Yuan, 2010), which initiated rational dialogues on GM crops. Another scheme to exchange roles between journalists and scientists was carried out by the China Science Media Centre in 2011 with expected success (Jia and Tan, 2012).
What is needed now is official science communication organs like MOST and CAST to work with public research institutes, universities, scientists, and other social players to actively promote public participatory dialogues on issues of social concern to advance the public engagement with science.
Footnotes
Acknowledgements
The authors thank Professor James Wilsdon of Sussex University for his invitation to write this piece for the 20th anniversary special issue of Public Understanding of Science and for his guiding comments on the main purpose and structure of this article.
Funding
Liu’s work is supported by Tsinghua University Fund for Cultural Inheritance and Innovation (2012WHYX007), and National Social Sciences Foundation of China (08BZX076).