A brief historical overview critiques earlier phases of public engagement with science, beginning with the deficit or PUS model, and then moving on to a dialogue, but downstream, in which public dialogue with science and technology occurred only after directions, goals, values and trajectories had already been established by experts, with the public merely reacting negatively to an already stable science or technology. The mistakes of this approach are exemplified by the GM debate. To avoid this in newer science and technology initiatives such as nanotechnology, engagement must move "upstream" during the initial development process itself. This is necessary from a pro-science and technology government standpoint as well as an activist standpoint, because proponents of science and technology realize, having received a black eye from the GM debate, that earlier public engagement in science can help identify, diffuse or solve problems earlier, before they become crises.
In Chapter 2, Wilsdon and Willis argue that the exclusive focus on risk assessment in much current public engagement discourse is a dominating tyranny squeezing out fruitful discussion of larger questions, such as why this technology and not another, who needs it, who controls it, who benefits from it, can they be trusted, and what will it mean for everyday people?
Focus on risk ignores these larger questions because they deal with sociopolitical issues, and risk assessment allows the topic to consider only techno-fixes.
This is related in Chapter 3 to the reasons why governments which to engage the public with science. These are normative–because people seem to think it is the right thing to do; instrumental–because engagement serves the interests of government or industry; and substantive–to improve quality of decision-making, create more socially robust scientific and technological solutions, improve social outcomes in a deeper way, involving citizens as participants in the process.
Most current public engagement activities do so mostly for instrumental and a bit of normative reasons, but few do so for substantive reasons, which the authors wish to promote. They point out the difference between forms of engagement which close down rather than open up debate, critiquing the Royal Society's model of public involvement as one out of many checkboxes for proceeding with nanotech as deficit model Mark 2.
There are many methods of public engagement, including deliberative polling, focus groups, citizens' juries, consensus conferences, stakeholder dialogues, internet dialogues, and deliberative mapping.
Each of these has different characteristics with regard to openness, representation, hierarchy, purpose.
When choosing a method of engagement, one must ask, is the goal to have a process of deliberation where views are formed and discussed, or simply to take a snapshot of existing views in order to inform decisions? Is the sample supposed to be representative? Is the relationship between expert and lay in the process hierarchical or not? Is the goal to arrive at consensus or to explore views?
The authors argue that a true, substantive engagement with science needs to go beyond merely voicing public concerns, interests and opinions on science, but must become part of the decision making process of science itself. This is political, thus public engagement must become part of the process of deliberative democracy.
Chapter 4 discusses the need for public engagement of corporate, as well as government funded, science and technology. Finland's model of open, citizen-led innovation is held up as a model. Corporate social responsibility and sustainability are potential avenues for public engagement with corporate R&D to gain traction. However two tendencies, that of marginalization and of bureaucratization, need to be countered. In addition, a more nuanced approach towards the precautionary principle (it can, contrary to conventional wisdom, be good for innovation in proper regulatory environments), is needed.
Finally, in the last chapter Wilsdon and Willis articulate their vision of upstream public engagement of science: see-through science. A number of criteria for see-through science are necessary: the government must be clear and transparent about how the outcomes of its engagement initiatives will be used in decision-making. The process should be deliberative, allowing public and expert to exchange views without priority to be given to either one, and both civil society and the political process should be involved, and engagement should take place early enough in the science/technology's development to affect its trajectory. The debate should set the agenda for future research, informing research priorities. Afterwards, continued dialogue via smaller engagements should be conducted to revisit issues and keep up with research as it develops. The findings should inform the national stance on the issue in international forums, and will bolster its democratic legitimacy.
Lastly, the authors argue that proper upstream engagement with science will have the potential to transform the practice of science itself, pointing to Rob Doubleday, a sociologist, embedded in a research lab helping to communicate and mediate between the scientists and social scientists and the public. They promote more reflective capacity of scientists themselves, bringing out the public in the scientist–scientists need to see themselves as parents and citizens, and more contact with non-experts and laypeople should help them gain broader perspectives on the social implications of their work.
Finally, the authors recommend that companies, NGOs, and the media be reached out to in new ways to further the cause of see-through science.
While the Forward's tone is celebratory of science and technology as the engine of Britain's continued economic competitiveness, and thus calls into question the motives of the pamphlet, it is clear that Wilsdon and Willis see public approval of state S&T initiatives as only part of the reason for upstream endeavors, albeit one which can be leveraged to sell their vision of see-through science to politicians, policy-makers, and corporate leaders. Rather, their agenda is that a science which involves the public at its earliest stages will be more socially responsible and richer in the long run, serving the needs of society rather than the narrow needs/imaginations of technocratic elites. They draw from some S&TS work such as Steve Hilgartner and Sheila Jasanoff, but overall their attitude towards science and technology is more positive than critical. Rather, it is the fact that the public is excluded from the deliberative decision-making processes going into S&T that they disapprove of, and hope to change with their manifesto. Their vision of see-through science seems to almost invoke a utopia of civil society, government, and techno-scientific experts all working in harmony for the betterment of society through socially and environmentally responsible science and technology.
Finally, the authors recommend that companies, NGOs, and the media be reached out to in new ways to further the cause of see-through science.
While the Forward's tone is celebratory of science and technology as the engine of Britain's continued economic competitiveness, and thus calls into question the motives of the pamphlet, it is clear that Wilsdon and Willis see public approval of state S&T initiatives as only part of the reason for upstream endeavors, albeit one which can be leveraged to sell their vision of see-through science to politicians, policy-makers, and corporate leaders. Rather, their agenda is that a science which involves the public at its earliest stages will be more socially responsible and richer in the long run, serving the needs of society rather than the narrow needs/imaginations of technocratic elites. They draw from some S&TS work such as Steve Hilgartner and Sheila Jasanoff, but overall their attitude towards science and technology is more positive than critical. Rather, it is the fact that the public is excluded from the deliberative decision-making processes going into S&T that they disapprove of, and hope to change with their manifesto. Their vision of see-through science seems to almost invoke a utopia of civil society, government, and techno-scientific experts all working in harmony for the betterment of society through socially and environmentally responsible science and technology.
No comments:
Post a Comment