Citizens and Contemporary Science Ways to dialogue in science centre contexts.

The current paper presents a study conducted at At-Bristol Science Centre, UK. It is a front-end evaluation for the “Live Science Zone” at At-Bristol, which will be built during the autumn of 2004. It will provide a facility for programmed events and shows, non-programmed investigative activities and the choice of passive or active exploration of current scientific topics. The main aim of the study is to determine characteristics of what kind of techniques to use in the Live Science Zone. The objectives are to explore what has already been done at At-Bristol, and what has been done at other science centres, and to identify successful devices. The secondary aim is mapping what sorts of topics that visitors are actually interested in debating. The methods used in the study are deep qualitative interviews with professionals working within the field of science communication in Europe and North America, and questionnaires answered by visitors to At-Bristol. The results show that there are some gaps between the intentions of the professionals and the opinions of the visitors, in terms of opportunities and willingness for dialogue in science centre activities. The most popular issue was Future and the most popular device was Film.

Revising the National Ambient Air Quality Standards: The integration of science and policy

Under the Clean Air Act, Congress granted discretionary decision making authority to the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). This discretionary authority involves setting standards to protect the public's health with an "adequate margin of safety" based on current scientific knowledge. The Administrator of the EPA is usually not a scientist, and for the National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for particulate matter (PM), the Administrator faced the task of revising a standard when several scientific factors were ambiguous. These factors included: (1) no identifiable threshold below which health effects are not manifested, (2) no biological basis to explain the reported associations between particulate matter and adverse health effects, and (3) no consensus among the members of the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) as to what an appropriate PM indicator, averaging period, or value would be for the revised standard. ^ This project recommends and demonstrates a tool, integrated assessment (IA), to aid the Administrator in making a public health policy decision in the face of ambiguous scientific factors. IA is an interdisciplinary approach to decision making that has been used to deal with complex issues involving many uncertainties, particularly climate change analyses. Two IA approaches are presented; a rough set analysis by which the expertise of CASAC members can be better utilized, and a flag model for incorporating the views of stakeholders into the standard setting process. ^ The rough set analysis can describe minimal and maximal conditions about the current science pertaining to PM and health effects. Similarly, a flag model can evaluate agreement or lack of agreement by various stakeholder groups to the proposed standard in the PM review process. ^ The use of these IA tools will enable the Administrator to (1) complete the NAAQS review in a manner that is in closer compliance with the Clean Air Act, (2) expand the input from CASAC, (3) take into consideration the views of the stakeholders, and (4) retain discretionary decision making authority. ^