The interviewees all made note of enhanced outcomes they thought would stem from improved scientific literacy, not only for the public, but also for governments and the business
community. The outcomes that emerged from these interviews include: improved decision making ability resulting in better decisions, better information seeking behaviours, and an enhanced relationship and output between the science and business communities.
Scientific literacy for better decision making was raised as a primary outcome in a number of interviews. WA believed that ‘once people have had some science training, if they are thinking about anything they do in their life, they say “gee, I wonder what the facts are” or “what do the authorities say about this”’ resulting in critical thinking and decision making. Some such as AMA, the main proponent, made direct statements that a scientifically literate society is ‘a society that is able to make informed decisions’, adding that it is ‘more able to make decisions about their own health and society wide issues like climate change on the basis of some understanding of what science is and what science isn’t’. AMA emphasised the importance of scientific method as part of this understanding, with the aim that a SEA would be able to ‘to interrogate information so as to better understand it and make better decisions’. As noted earlier as part of the discussion on pragmatic benefits, AMA’s example of people better able to make choices about healthy or unhealthy eating also applies to the discussion here. IC shared this sentiment with his concise statement about the public that ‘the more they are engaged with
science the more likely they are able to make an informed choice…so the more they know the better their decisions will be’. GD’s opinion was in line with this argument with his view that the public need to understand to safeguard themselves:
they need to be aware that in the future they will be and indeed are citizens of a country where issues of science are very important. So they need to be able to understand enough science to know when they are being taken for a ride with you know dietary supplements or medication or particular shampoos that have formula X, so all of that stuff is I think kind of important.
GD added to this discussion that a scientifically engaged public is one that has ‘a greater understanding of the sort of questions that science can answer, the sort of things science can’t answer, you know what are the realms of faith and belief opposed to science and rational evidence’. Informed decision making is not just limited to the public. AMA felt the same for all sectors, stating that
I think training and an ability to use the scientific evidence base is relevant in other sectors – whether you’re a farmer, whether you’re in the business community, whether you’re in education, whether you’re a public servant, whether you’re running a small business, you have an opportunity to innovate and use best practice; and best practice is informed by the evidence base. So you have an opportunity to improve or put your best foot forward by being scientifically engaged.
WA shared AMA’s view that all sectors can benefit from using scientific evidence. He stated that ‘all major parts of our society – civil society, government, business – engage with science, but particularly with scientific evidence, in what they do’. WA did not purely raise the
importance of public decision making, but instead his discussion focussed on being informed by ‘independent scientific advisory bodies and scientists in their departments’ in the decision making process by governments.
WA continued to emphasise the importance of scientific evidence not just in decision making but for the consumers of the information. He outlined the view that
we want opinion leaders to do the same [verify claims with scientific evidence], so that journalists, radio broadcasters, magazine editors recognize how big a role science plays in society and feel that it is not just another view point – science is the way in which we get the evidence upon which we do build a good healthy, wealthy society, so that's a big a big wish.
This statement also raised the notion of the importance of information seeking behaviour, supported by another statement from WA, who outlined a desire for
a community who feels that when they hear the latest thing that is good for your health they might think, “oh, I wonder if there is any evidence for that” and go to some reliable source such as the NHMRC or somewhere to check whether that’s the case.
GD, IC and AMA shared this view in support of information seeking behaviour. GD outlined the aim ‘where the public feel comfortable with science, they know who to approach if there are questions of science, they know who to trust, and indeed who not to trust’, and as IC stated it, the ‘ability for the community to make judgements when it has to’. AMA made a similar statement with the aim of
a greater proportion of people...to have an ability to interrogate information…so for them to be able to sort out what is real versus what is good information, valuable information, what is evidence based information versus propaganda and other things is important.
As a consequence of this
if more people are able to enquire, scrutinize, interrogate information they’re engaged, they’re totally engaged, they’re practicing science in their every day world in many ways they’re practicing the discipline of science.
AB offered a different view on the use of science. He did not comment on the practice of evidence based decision making and the use of science, instead discussing the ambiguities around the terminology used as part of the scientific enterprise. He remarked that ‘to
understand scientific knowledge isn’t nearly as black and white’ and that it is ‘ambiguous in its outcomes’. He went on to discuss the fundamental differences in the terminology that scientists use and how this translates to the community and the potential for misleading the community. AB remarked, ‘are we telling them in certain instances that science is absolute when it’s not – and we are. …So that is misleading people, raising expectations and the community does that in a very damaging way all the time’. AB put forward the alternate view that science gets into trouble too as it is ‘so couched in a probalistic language that the community at large has no idea what it means’. He argued that this confusion regarding the language of science is ‘a real danger’.
Related to information seeking behaviour, AMA again emphasised the importance of the peer review process and in particular the role of universities. She stated that as part of the scientific process it is expected that scientists’ ‘conduct is rigorous and where application of that peer review process is not compromised in research activities undertaken by universities and in their teaching of students, and equally the student experience as well’. WA shared a related concern with respect to the fidelity or reliability of information, remarking, ‘well there’s clearly a need to try by some means to help people understand what’s reliable evidence and what isn’t’.
All interviewees highlighted the relationship between science and business, and the benefits of a strong connection between the two. GD discussed how these connections with research and development (R&D) can enhance business as he remarked that ‘companies don’t often have the R&D capability or need to have it, but they do need to be able to engage with smart people from time to time who can help them solve particular problems’. He went onto argue in support of the value of science for all businesses, not just R&D, as the ‘non science businesses still use science’. In support of this view, AB offered a different perspective, discussing at length the role of the ARC and his concern about ‘strengthening...that research-industry connection’, AB goes on to discuss
how the knowledge that is developed within universities has application in the broad – the benefits of research, and there is an enormous international conversation about the articulation of the benefits of research and indeed the strengthening of that research industry connection is one of the things that I think this government is very keen to stimulate.
Others such as WA and AMA focussed more on future ideals in terms of the relationship between science and business. WA outlined a business community that
would be using scientific research more than they do. They would be sponsoring scientific research, they would have stronger research and development activities, they would be employers of more people with scientific backgrounds, in appropriate jobs of course…so some leadership really.
AMA outlined a similar view but focussed on the integration of science into the business community as the latter ‘would have on their board, within their ranks, within their workforce people who have an understanding of science and are or will have potentially been practicing scientists…having scientific strategic advisers on their boards…that better their business decisions’.