Science in (American) life, and other controversies

06 November 2009

By Sarah Davies

I just got back from a conference in Washington DC (the big social studies of science conference, if anyone’s interested). In between paper sessions, drinking coffee and catching up with colleagues I managed to get in a fair amount of sightseeing – after all, if I’m going to fly across the Atlantic and lose approximately three days to jetlag it seems rude not to have a good look round.

Now bear with me here – this does have a point beyond a description of what I did on my holidays. But one of the things I enjoyed most was getting along to the Smithsonian, and in particular to the National Museum of American History’s gallery on Science in American Life. This is, unsurprisingly, a historical account of the ways in which science and technology have impacted everyday life over the last century and a half, from early analysis of dangerous food additives to nuclear power and biotechnology.

It was a good exhibition. But, geekily, the main reason I enjoyed myself was that I’ve read lots about the gallery in academic literature on museums and science communication. In the 1990s, when it first opened, it was intensely controversial, attracting criticism from organisations such as the American Chemical Society. The reason? In presenting science as intertwined with the mundane and as having pros and cons, upsides and downsides, it was seen as being unduly negative. There was, it was felt, too much information on Hiroshima and not enough on medicine.

Whether this is the case is, of course, a matter of opinion. But visiting made me think again about the relationship between research – our research – and everyday life. Should we worry about the impacts our writings, findings and claims might have further down the line? While we may not be working on anything so potentially destructive as the nuclear bomb, none of our research exists in a vacuum. And this will increasingly be the case with the REF’s (potential) emphasis on the ‘impact’ of research.

I have colleagues who make conscious – and conscientious – choices to work on issues that they see as socially important and where they feel they can make a difference to people’s quality of life. Others insist that they should be able to do ‘pure’ research and not have to think about possible consequences. And some of us, of course, feel that we simply have to follow the money and take up whatever openings are available.

Do you feel that your research has a tangible effect on anything beyond your field and your CV? And do you resent or celebrate the increasing consideration of ‘impact’? I’d love to know what people think – and not just in the sciences. If someone were to develop an exhibition on your research and everyday life, what would it look like?