Final Report Editor Ulrike Felt June 2003

PUS Policies – Introduction 55
whereby what is sought is mainly to inform or to educate people. In both countries,
however, centralised activities combined with decentralised ones. In France, while the
emblematic “Cité des sciences et de l’industrie” (“Cité de La Villette”), was officially
presented as “the biggest CST centre in the world”, and strongly supported by the
central state, the “centres de culture scientifique, technologique et industrielle” (defined
as “sites for creation, confrontation, research, education and sensitisation, information
and mediation”) provide illustrations of local dynamism as regards scientific and
technological developments.
In Sweden, the intertwining of central and regional initiatives can be noticed, with
regional universities, in cooperation with regional and local administration and industry,
more inclined towards practical understanding of science, and traditional universities in
larger cities developing cultural and civic forms of science popularisation.
Another interesting differential feature of national policies in this area is the underlying
concept of science. Whereas Austria and Sweden tend to apply a broad notion, which
includes the social sciences and the humanities - that, as a result, have also been the
object of initiatives in this field - the other countries tend to limit them to the natural and
exact sciences and engineering. The Portuguese “Ciência Viva” programme, for
example, emphasises the experimental teaching of natural and technological sciences.
The social actors involved
As could be expected, the design and the operation of public bodies that formulate or
implement policies in this area and the relative role of the State and of scientific
communities do reflect the underlying cultures of both the political and the scientific
systems. Contrasting social and institutional cultures also shape the involvement of
non-governmental actors in decision-making.
In the United Kingdom, may be more than in any other country, scientists themselves
have been pushing reflection and action. The Bodmer report was a product of the
Royal Society in response to political and social pressures for increasing accountability
of scientists. It led to the establishment of the Committee on the Public Understanding
of Science (COPUS) under the auspices of the Royal Society and the British
Association for the Advancement of Science. The “PUS movement” has been largely
expert-led, and involved a dynamic bottom-up activity by schools, science clubs,
industrial and professional associations, and even individuals. Public funding followed
this movement, supporting mainly small activities by practising scientists to
communicate their work often through schools.
Initiatives under the “PUS movement” evolved gradually into more interactive exercises
involving dialogue between experts and lay members of the public. Both the British
Parliament and the Prime Minister’s Office have taken a strong interest in participatory