Why is COPUS needed?
Science has driven technological advances that make the U.S. a global economic and military superpower. Yet concerns are being voiced from all sectors — business, academia, educators, Congress — that science is under assault, that there is a growing disinterest and in some cases, actual hostility to science. As a result, the U.S. is falling behind.

For sixty years in this country, there has been a symbiotic relationship between science and industry. The scientific enterprise, supported by federal funding to scientists and science educators, has resulted in advances that have helped to drive the U.S. economy. In turn, industry has supported federal science programs and invested its own resoures. That system is now in jeopardy. The nature of science is being successfully challenged, reducing the interest in and support for it, and thus reducing the flow of people and ideas to industry.

Regardless of whether you categorize our current situation as a stall or decline, there is general agreement that America's dominance in science and innovation is slipping.

Just look at three measuring sticks: patents awarded to American scientists; papers published by American scientists; and Nobel prizes won by American scientists. All three are down.

Many Americans are unaware of this trend. They also have no idea what this could mean to our economy and our national security.

— Rep. Frank Wolf (R-VA), in a May 12, 2005 press conference

Although the public is fascinated by science, generally there is little understanding of how it operates. As a result, pseudo-science, junk science, and scams are prevalent and often difficult for the layperson to recognize. Scientific information about issues such as global warming, or new medical applications such as stem cell research may be viewed as inconsistent or even threatening to a society overwhelmed by the implications of rapid technological change. This is particularly true of those who fear or resist change. Adding to the confusion are the well-publicized messages by those who capitalize on politicizing or demonizing science to promote non-scientific agendas.

Science only functions with the presumption of honesty. It flounders when confronted by those who knowingly and willingly distort the truth. But this is exactly what faces scientists as we attempt to defend science in high-school classrooms against intelligent design (ID).

— Lawrence Krauss, New Scientist, July 9 2005, Creationism special: Survival of the slickest

The lack of public understanding, and in some cases misrepresentation of science, is a national crisis and should be a concern to all scientists, science educators, business leaders, and public policy officials. In large part, the current attacks on evolution are symptomatic of this general misunderstanding of what science is and what it is not. We need to develop a coherent, comprehensive message — a redundant message — that can be applied to biology, agriculture, medicine, seismology, physics, biochemistry, paleontology, and so on. We need to "market" the scientific process, using the 10 million scientists and scientifically literate members of society as emissaries to the broader public. If we keep sending a coordinated message about how science proceeds — with the premise that eventually the message will stick — then attacks on science will fail the test, unwarranted fears of societal change triggered by new discoveries can be assuaged, and the contributions of science can be valued sufficiently to promote its continued advancement and contributions to the nation’s well-being and national security.

If scientists wish to market evolutionary bioscience and geoscience to a broader audience, we must begin by "marketing" science itself.

— Sorena Svea Sorenson, National Museum of Natural History, Washington DC EOS, 28 June 2005

The Business Roundtable, comprised of the leading industry and trade associations, released a report in July, 2005, Tapping Americas Potential, that documents the nation's drop in scientific and technological competitiveness, and offers a set of initiatives to reverse the decline. The report conclusions identified roles for business and government in implementing recommendations.

Congress also addressed the rising concern about U.S. competitiveness at a national Innovation Summit held in late 2005 that brought a large representation of the nation's technology industries together with government policy-makers.

These are independent efforts, each from a different perspective, but all with a common goal — strengthening science in our schools and increasing the public understanding of and appreciation for science.

What is missing or not being done?
At this point, there is:

• No on-going coordination among science organizations and institutions

• No systematic coordination between the scientific community and the technology-driven business/industry community

• No cross-disciplinary policy development initiative for improving the public understanding of science

• No program to "market" the nature of science to the public

• No full-time dynamic outreach effort to scientists, science proponents, science and technology, industry, or textbook publishers to engage the public in understanding the nature of science

• No efforts to create a widespread rewards system for scientists to engage in the public understanding of science in addition to traditional recognition for research or teaching

• No national effort to work with the media to promote science and its importance to society

• No systematic training of scientists to speak to the public and decision-makers

What would COPUS do?
The primary function of COPUS will be to build on current efforts by providing an on-going networked effort across all science disciplines and between the science and business communities. It will serve to develop, promulgate, and implement coordinated strategies to support and promote the public understanding of science. As such, it will engage in the following activities:

• Identify, recognize, and facilitate collaborations among existing programs and organizations.

• Lay the long-term foundation for developing a grass roots coordinated network to explain and promote the nature and role of science.

• Provide a place to bring together policy makers across scientific disciplines and to engage business and industry in strategies to support and promote the importance of science and science education.

• Promote a system that recognizes and rewards contributions by scientists to better public understanding of science.

• Use the latest technology and integrated media approaches to carry out the program: including use of online resources such the Internet, webcasts, and blogs.

Specific products and programs of COPUS

• Establish a think tank focused on strategies to increase public understanding of science.

• Define the coordinated message to be aimed at multiple audiences — scientists and the technically literate, K-16, media, general public, decision-makers, and business.

• Prepare clearly worded explanations of the scientific process and nature of science and freely encourage their use in all science textbooks and elsewhere.

• Develop programs and materials to better inform students in the nature of science. Every student graduating in science should be able to clearly describe the scientific process and the nature of science, in addition to understanding the specifics of their fields.

• Develop an Understanding Science website. Using the framework and expertise gained from production of the Understanding Evolution website, this site would concentrate on developing the exemplars and modules that focus on core concepts dealing with the nature of science across all disciplines.

• Provide every scientist and science proponent with the tools and information to better explain the nature of science and the scientific process, as well as the potential and limitations of science.

• Empower one million scientists — provide them with the confidence and tools to respond to the media, testify, address school boards, etc.

• Support broadcast facilities to produce and distribute radio and video productions, ads, and announcements explaining the nature of science.

What would COPUS look like?
COPUS should be a distributed consortium — a national network composed of a small coordinating center connecting partners and regional hubs that collectively represent all fields of science, as well as offering expertise in outreach and communication. The network will link universities, scientific societies, science advocacy groups, science media, informal science centers, government, trade groups and businesses.

Proposal
We propose to establish a Coalition for the Public Understanding of Science (COPUS), which will function to improve the public's understanding of the nature and value of science. By engaging the nation's scientific, business, and education communities in a coordinated, comprehensive national program, we can work together to:

• Maintain the U.S. contributions in science and technology for economic development and national security

• Encourage more students to pursue careers in science

• Enable society to better understand what science is and its role in society

• Facilitate informed decision-making about new scientific capabilities that impact society

COPUS will provide resources to promote widespread public understanding of science. It will offer a safety net for scientists and science in an environment in which both are under fire from ideological and political forces. It will focus on the positive aspects of science; its role will be to educate.

We propose the establishment of the Coalition for the Public Understanding of Science at a critical time — a time at which America's global science leadership is slipping and attempts to redefine the fundamental nature of science further threaten its major contributions to the economic well-being and security of the nation. We simply cannot afford to let that happen.

Just as the scientific community has broad responsibilities to monitor the integrity with which its members conduct their work, it also must take some responsibility for the uses of science and for how it is portrayed to the public. That requires us to be clear about what science is and to distinguish clearly between scientific and belief systems, in schools and in various public venues devoted to science. Otherwise, we will fail in our obligation to our fellow citizens and to the successor generations of students who will depend on science for their future.

— Redefining Science [editorial], Alan I. Leshner, Chief Executive Officer, American Association for the Advancement of Science, Science, Vol 309, Issue 5732, 221, 8 July 2005

January 2006

Support for COPUS workshops by the National Science Foundation under Grant Nos. EAR-0606600 and EAR-0628790. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in the material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.

Copyright © 2013 UCMP