Public Understanding and Public Participation in Science:

(Paper presented at the 6^th International Conference on Public Communication of Science and Technology Trends in Science Communication today: Bridging the Gap between Theory and Practice, Urs Dahinden, 2001, CERN, Geneva)

The cracks in the relationship between Science and the public have been described by numerous different studies and the two predominant approaches for understanding and remedying the fractures are the public understanding of science approach and the public participation in science approach.

In the PUS or deficit model, the lack of interest in science and distrust of science is due to a lack of knowledge about science. The remedy is thus to increase activity in this area through the mass media, science cafés etc.

In the PPS model, the remedy to public feeling sof exclusion from science policy making is to integrate the public into the process to shape the course of scientific and technological development. A number of such public participation procedures have been developed and applied in the past, like citizen juries (planning cells) (Crosby 1987, Renn 1995, Hörning 1999), consensus conferences (Andersen 1999), deliberative polls (Fishkin 1991; Fishkin 1995) or focus groups (Dahinden/Dürrenberger 1997a, 1997b, Dürrenberger 1999).

1) The two approaches have to be considered as complements, rather than competitors

PUS could learn:

• Increasing public understanding requires the subjective feeling of being actively involved (as a citizen or as a consumer).



• Learning is most intense in phases of conflict (knowledge gap model)

PPS could learn:

• Promoting the understanding of science: A necessary, but not sufficient element of all public participation procedures

2) “Paradise” lost: no way back to blind trust in science

Rather science as a social institution has to put up with the perspective that a scientifically informed public with the possibility of democratic participation in the process shaping science and technology will do both agree or disagree with the solutions suggested by science.

3) Further research

On that background, it is likely that there will be a continuing and long-term need for projects promoting both public understanding and public participation in science. Public participation procedures seem to be especially promising, but not yet well understood instruments that need further research.

Engaging citizens in policy-making: information, consultation and public participation

(PUMA Policy Brief No. 10 July 2001)
Governments are in a crisis of identity, some would say legitimacy, with election turnouts low in many OECD countries and a widespread feeling of disenchantment among citizens with government and the democratic process. Can governments do something to change this? Certainly, doing nothing is not an answer. What every country needs is more transparency, more consultation and more participation. This book is a unique source of comparative information on this challenging subject. It examines a wide range of country experiences, offers examples of good practice, highlights innovative approaches and identifies promising tools (including new information technologies).

A set of ten guiding principles for engaging citizens in policy-making is proposed. Table of contents includes: -- Strengthening government-citizen relations -- Country case studies in information, consultation and participation -- Consulting on health policy in Canada -- Engaging citizens in the Danish health care sector -- Engaging the poor in policy-making on poverty and social exclusion in Flanders (Belgium)-- Public consultation on education policy in the Czech Republic -- Access to information on the environment in the United States -- Public work programmes in Hungary -- Information and consultation in the field of social housing in France -- Using ICTs to strengthen government transparency and relations with citizens in Korea -- Using consensus conferences on genetically modified food in Norway.

Link to Policy Brief

Link to Handbook

Public Participation (Gene Rowe)

here is widespread concern in many democratic societies about a loss of public trust in authorities, politicians, and scientists (or at least, in those scientists that advise policy makers). This has presented difficulties to the traditional policy making process, in which policy makers, helped by expert advisors, make decisions and then communicate these to the public, in the expectation that the public will understand and accept these, and think and behave accordingly. This issue is particularly pertinent to the food domain, which has both influenced, and been affected by, this trend. The BSE crisis is seen as one of the major causes of this trend, especially in the UK. In this case, initial assurances by government (informed by expert advice) that eating beef was ‘safe’, later turned out to be dangerously wrong. Following this event, it is perhaps of no surprise that the public have become somewhat sceptical about more recent expert/policy maker assurances about the safety of other technologies or products, such as genetically modified foods. In this case, widespread public concern has undermined the utility of this potentially valuable technology.

Link

One potential solution to this crisis in public trust and governance, which has become popular in the UK, Europe, and other democracies, is to involve the public more fully in the policy process – that is, to seek public views and participation, instead of treating the public as simply passive recipients of policy decisions. It has been assumed by many political theorists, social commentators, and even politicians that such ‘public participation’ will lead to many benefits, such as increasing public trust in authorities, improving citizen political efficacy, enhancing democratic ideals and even improving the quality of policy decisions. However, these assumptions are largely untested, and the benefits of ‘participation’ are yet to be confirmed.

Making an innovation sell

Well what makes one innovation be readily taken up, while another falls to the side unnoticed? Theorists have identified 5 critical characteristics which help identify the wheat from the chaff. Note that these are not requirements for a successful innovation; but their presence or absence could greatly affect the rate at which it gets adopted.

Relative Advantage: Is the innovation better than the status quo? Will people perceive it as better? If not, the innovation will not spread quickly, if at all.

Compatibility: How does the innovation fit with people's past experiences and present needs? If it doesn't fit both well, it won't spread well. Does it require a change in existing values? If members of the culture feel as though they have to become very different people to adopt the innovation, they will be more resistant to it.

Complexity: How difficult is the innovation to understand and apply? The more difficult, the slower the adoption process.

Trialability: Can people "try out" the innovation first? Or must they commit to it all at once? If the latter, people will be far more cautious about adopting it.

Observability: How visible are the results of using it? If people adopt it, can the difference be discerned by others? If not, the innovation will spread more slowly.

Science and Public policy

(abstracted from Luján, J.L. and Todt,O. (2007) "Precaution in public: the social perception of the role of science and values in policy making" Public Understanding of Science; 16; 97)

Science and policy interact in two ways; Science for policy e.g. (scientific knowledge as basis for regulation and decision making) and Policy for science (governance of science, how to promote science and technology). Whilst primarily the focus of scholarly interest, more recently the interactions between science and policy have given rise to public debate and conflict.

Central to the conflict is the role of science in informing decision-making. Science has become ubiquitous in modern society and its impact is widely felt. As a knowledge broker, it failed in its attempt to appease the public during the recent BSE health scare. Equally events such as Chernobyl lead to increased mistrust of Science's impact on the environment and society in general. Both situations lead us to conclude that social concerns must be incorporated into decision making relating to Science and Technology. The importance of this has already been recognized at the policy level (National Research Council, 1996; OECD, 2001).

Public concerns about undesired effects of scientific-technological development are particularly pronounced in the European Union (EU). This is one of the reasons why the EU executive branch, the European Commission, has been especially active in this area, trying to start a dialogue with society on issues related to science and technology. One of the first results is the Science and Society Action Plan (European Commission, 2001a), which aims at increasing understanding of science among Europeans, as well as more clearly regulating the use of expert knowledge in science and technology policy making. The stated goal is to guarantee public scrutiny, transparency and opening up of decision making to a wide range of social actors, as laid down in the Commission’s own guidelines on the use of expert knowledge (European Commission, 2002).

The European White Paper on governance (European Commission, 2001b) raises the issue of “democratizing expertise,” by making it respond more directly to social demands and preoccupations. The Commission, in fact, expresses the need for more citizen participation in policy making in order to increase public trust. In fact, the citizens’ trust in decision-making processes is now regarded as one of the fundamental pillars of technology development (Slovic, 1997; Todt, 2003). The most recent EU regulatory law-making is already taking account of this. The completely revamped European food safety system, for instance, now based on a new EU food law (European Parliament and Council, 2002), includes systematic actor involvement in decision making, transparency in operation and wide-reaching public access to information, with the explicit goal of regaining citizens’ trust in the food system (see the EC White Paper on Food Safety, European Commission, 1999).

Despite those policy changes and the importance given to the analysis of the relationship between science and public policy, this topic has been given relatively little explicit attention in studies of public perception. So far, few surveys have posed questions directly related to policy making or precaution. One of the most recent perception studies to include questions on the relationship between science and policy was a 1999 Norwegian survey (Kallerund and Ramberg, 2002). It included two questions related to public trust in science, two on the precautionary principle, as well as two on the role of scientific knowledge in the elaboration of laws and regulations related to science and technology.

Link

Science//Society Research Seminar II
Dublin City University, Friday, 19 January 2007

Venue: National Institute for Cellular Biotechnology (NICB) Conference Room

---

Outline programme

11.30 Coffee and meet-and-greet

12.00 Food science and public perceptions

Irish media coverage on obesity
Suzanne Harkins, PhD researcher, Dept of Sociology, TCD

Contesting food safety and quality
Colin Sage, Senior Lecturer, Dept of Geography, UCC

Chair: Juliana Adelman, St Patrick’s College, Drumcondra

13.00 Lunch

14.00 Fame and infamy in science

Celebrity scientists
Declan Fahy, PhD researcher, School of Communications, DCU

Scientific fraud
Brian Trench, Senior Lecturer, School of Communications, DCU

Chair: Donal O’Mathuna, School of Nursing, DCU

15.00 Public participation

Expert and non-expert negotiations of science and technology Ciaran Fallon, PhD researcher, Dept of Sociology, UCD

Science shops
Nora Shovelin, PhD researcher, School of Communications, DCU

What is ethics doing in the governance of biotechnology in the UK?
Alfred Moore, Lecturer, Dept of Philosophy, UCC

Chair: Catherine O’Mahony, Dept of Biochemistry, University College Cork

16.15 Coffee and closing discussion

17.00 Reception