June 2026 online meeting - Discussion of Royal Society Science for Society report

The June 2026 MathSci-Comm Network meeting was a discussion of the recent Science for Society report from the Royal Society. The report is a follow-up to the 1985 Bodmer report on the public understanding of science, which led to a range of changes from the establishment of the Faraday lectures and National Science week, to research councils being required to fund public understanding of science. Science for Society is divided into sections for researchers, public engagement professionals, those working in education, industry and policy. It is also accompanied by over a dozen case studies and a study on the factors affecting public engagement by UK researchers. 

Marianne Freiberger and Rachel Thomas started the meeting with a summary of some of the key conclusions from the report. We then heard from Ulrike Tillman, who chaired the working group for the Education chapter, and David Spiegelhalter, member of the working group for the chapter on Mass Media and Misinformation presenting this section of the report. As usual, the presentations were recorded and are available below. To ensure comfortable discussion, the rest of the meeting was not recorded. However, it was a very fruitful conversation and so we have summarised some of the key points below, anonymising all contributions. Thank you to all the participants for their insightful comments. 

 

While there was agreement on the many positive aspects of the report, several gaps were highlighted. First, higher education is not discussed in the report. The Education working group deliberately focused on education for under-18s to ensure focus, assuming that university education would be covered in later chapters but this did not occur. In another example, the financial services sector is not addressed in the discussions on industry and business, despite its importance to understandings of maths and societal numeracy. 

The discussion turned to the question of trust as a key aspect of public engagement. The Wellcome Trust recently released a report on public trust in science, which indicates that general trust in scientists remains high. However, people who distrust scientists have a disproportionate impact on the coverage of science. The Wellcome report echoes some of David Spiegelhalter’s recommendations about differentiating between trust and trustworthiness, suggesting that it is more effective to demonstrate trustworthiness than to just try to encourage people’s trust. The Wellcome Trust identifies five elements of trustworthiness (integrity, benevolence, transparency, responsiveness, expertise). However, the field often relies too much on expertise, neglecting the other factors. The discussion also touched on how transparency about uncertainty can both strengthen engagement and reinforce doubt among skeptics. Finally, it was noted that one positive point is that there is evidence to suggest that society is less confined to “echo chambers” than it sometimes appears. 

Next, we discussed how likely it is that the report’s suggestions would be implemented. Respondents highlighted the statistic that the percentage of researchers stating that public engagement improves research has risen from 21% to over 60%, which is outstanding. However, it can be difficult to know how to incentivise this work, both personally and on an organisational level. While the report does have recommendations for individuals, of the 20 overall recommendations, 7 are directed towards the government, all of which require some spending which could make it harder to see them enacted. There could also be a risk that spending is diverted from the research itself to focus on engagement, in an already limited funding environment. However, in some cases the economics may lead to long term savings. For example, one study shows that investment into teachers’ professional development (which is one of the recommendations in the Education chapter) can recoup costs as it led to improved teacher retention, thereby saving on recruitment costs. 

Finally, we had a thought-provoking discussion about the ability to measure the report’s impact. Given the report’s association with the Bodmer report, there are potential learnings from that history that could advise how to evaluate this report. In a similar vein, a number of the report’s suggestions focus on training opportunities. This has some parallels with other schemes such as the move towards EDI training or the responsible research initiative. However, it was unclear how to measure the impact of training (indeed, it was suggested that this may be an area where we have to rely on anecdotal evidence). 

Participants also highlighted a number of other useful resources: 

• Fiona Fox, Chair of the media working group, published a blog on the process and report conclusions 
• Tom King, a network member, wrote a blog with his concerns about the limits of the report
• Simon Denegri shared his response to the report on LinkedIn 
• The UK Statistical Authority Code of Practice
• Wellcome Trust report on public trust in science
• The government is currently undergoing a public consultation for a new green paper reviewing engagement with media