The "deficit model" is alive and well, on BBC Newsnight

As researchers, these days we are exhorted to take part in "public engagement" and "public dialogue", rather than "public understanding of science" (aka PUS) activities.

PUS died because it relied on something called the "deficit model". The idea behind the deficit model is this: if the public are not enthusiastic about a science topic (e.g. GM), it is because they lack knowledge of it. So if you just address that "knowledge deficit" by giving them more information about the science involved, then - hey presto! - you will win them over.

Unfortunately, the deficit model does not work. To know science is not necessarily to love it. As the debate over GM showed, giving people more information about the science involved usually led to them holding a more nuanced view on the topic, rather than converting them into supporters of the technology. All in all, the deficit model was rather patronising. People's views are not necessarily determined by their knowledge (or lack of knowledge) of the science involved, but often shaped by other, wider social concerns - such as corporate control of the food chain, in the case of GM.

So it was something of a surprise to see the deficit model alive and well in last night's Newsnight on BBC2. Following on from a poll suggesting that perhaps half the British public do not accept anthropogenic climate change, Newsnight's "Ethical Man" Justin Rowlatt set out to get "two leading British scientists to try to prove the science of global warming to a group of people whose views very loosely reflect national opinions".

Setting aside the point that we never actually "prove" anything with the scientific method, this was deficit model in the extreme. Putting some CO2 into a plastic bottle, shining a lamp on it, and recording the elevated temperature compared with a control bottle, was expected to provide some sort of road-to-Damascus conversion for the audience, many of whom were recycled from the Top Gear studio and therefore expected to be AGW deniers.

Of course, the "experiment" was utterly fatuous in its design, as commentators on the Ethical Man blog page have pointed out. And judging from the comments, it failed to convince many viewers. Not surprising, given that its whole concept was based on the deficit model.

And as an aside, why were neither of the "leading British scientists" in the Newsnight piece actually climate change researchers? Has "climategate" scared off climate change researchers from being advocates of their own work?

Attitudes to climate change science may fit the "certainty trough" proposed by sociologist Donald MacKenzie in 1970. Those closest to the science - actual climate change researchers - may be *less* confident about the certainty of their predictions than those who are one step removed from the research (e.g. journalists, science communicators who are not researchers in that field, science advisors, and politicians).

If the certainty trough does apply to climate change science, then those actually involved in the research really need to be the ones getting involved in the debate, in order to help restore public trust, rather than leaving it to others as in the Newsnight piece.

Postscript: I've just come across this paper from 2005 looking at the certainty trough wrt the output of GCMs in climate change prediction, which interestingly suggests climate modellers may not always fit the certainty trough model.