This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/science/political-science/2015/mar/27/lets-keep-talking-why-public-dialogue-on-science-and-technology-matters-more-than-ever
The article has changed 4 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 2 | Version 3 |
|---|---|
| Let’s keep talking: why public dialogue on science and technology matters more than ever | Let’s keep talking: why public dialogue on science and technology matters more than ever |
| (about 3 hours later) | |
| The need for researchers to escape the lab or the seminar room from time to time, and talk to the wider public about the work that they do, and why it matters, is now such an established feature of the academic landscape that it’s easy to forget how far and fast we’ve travelled. | The need for researchers to escape the lab or the seminar room from time to time, and talk to the wider public about the work that they do, and why it matters, is now such an established feature of the academic landscape that it’s easy to forget how far and fast we’ve travelled. |
| From the paternalistic if well-intended talk of “public understanding” of science in the 1980s, through the bumps and scrapes of battles over GM foods, climate change, bees and badgers, we’ve reached a point where the diversity, volume and intensity of conversations between researchers and the public – at schools, festivals and in pubs; on blogs and twitter; on TV, radio and YouTube – is one of the standout strengths of UK science. The launch earlier this week of an open access database of almost 7000 case studies, developed by universities for the Research Excellence Framework, provides another treasure trove of examples of creative ways researchers are engaging new audiences and having an impact on the world. | From the paternalistic if well-intended talk of “public understanding” of science in the 1980s, through the bumps and scrapes of battles over GM foods, climate change, bees and badgers, we’ve reached a point where the diversity, volume and intensity of conversations between researchers and the public – at schools, festivals and in pubs; on blogs and twitter; on TV, radio and YouTube – is one of the standout strengths of UK science. The launch earlier this week of an open access database of almost 7000 case studies, developed by universities for the Research Excellence Framework, provides another treasure trove of examples of creative ways researchers are engaging new audiences and having an impact on the world. |
| Over the past decade, the UK has also become a testbed for novel and more structured approaches to public dialogue on science and technology. Back in 2004, one of the quietly radical initiatives in Gordon Brown’s 10-Year framework for science was the creation of the Sciencewise programme, to support public dialogue on policy issues involving science and technology. | |
| At the time, policymakers, scientists and many in civil society were licking their wounds after a period of fierce argument over GM crops. There was a widespread desire to learn from this and other controversies, and find more constructive ways of engaging the public in discussions about the opportunities, costs, risks and benefits of advances in science and technology. | At the time, policymakers, scientists and many in civil society were licking their wounds after a period of fierce argument over GM crops. There was a widespread desire to learn from this and other controversies, and find more constructive ways of engaging the public in discussions about the opportunities, costs, risks and benefits of advances in science and technology. |
| Enter Sciencewise, now a national centre for public dialogue, which has gradually built up a wealth of expertise in how, when and why to bring public voices into such debates. An independent evaluation of the latest cycle of Sciencewise projects, published this week, shows how the appetite for public dialogue across Whitehall and the UK Research Councils is steadily growing, with more organisations getting involved. Recent projects have ranged across nanotechnologies; bovine TB; flood risk; bioenergy; fracking; space weather; and patient data. | Enter Sciencewise, now a national centre for public dialogue, which has gradually built up a wealth of expertise in how, when and why to bring public voices into such debates. An independent evaluation of the latest cycle of Sciencewise projects, published this week, shows how the appetite for public dialogue across Whitehall and the UK Research Councils is steadily growing, with more organisations getting involved. Recent projects have ranged across nanotechnologies; bovine TB; flood risk; bioenergy; fracking; space weather; and patient data. |
| Another topical example is the debate leading up to the recent Parliamentary vote in favour of mitochondrial transfer, which was underpinned by a large public consultation, commissioned by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) and supported by Sciencewise. Over thirteen months, this process involved more than 3000 people in a series of deliberative workshops, focus groups, open meetings and opinion polls, to better understand the ethical issues at stake, and identify what information people needed in order to reach informed views. | Another topical example is the debate leading up to the recent Parliamentary vote in favour of mitochondrial transfer, which was underpinned by a large public consultation, commissioned by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) and supported by Sciencewise. Over thirteen months, this process involved more than 3000 people in a series of deliberative workshops, focus groups, open meetings and opinion polls, to better understand the ethical issues at stake, and identify what information people needed in order to reach informed views. |
| Sir Roland Jackson, chair of Sciencewise, says that one of its contributions has been to “increase recognition among science policymakers that members of the public can have useful insights that the experts may not have thought about. Dialogue provides a valuable reality check on what’s at stake in a given policy.” | Sir Roland Jackson, chair of Sciencewise, says that one of its contributions has been to “increase recognition among science policymakers that members of the public can have useful insights that the experts may not have thought about. Dialogue provides a valuable reality check on what’s at stake in a given policy.” |
| Patrick Middleton, head of public engagement at the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council, points to synthetic biology as one research field where Sciencewise’s contribution proved particularly useful. “What we learnt from the dialogue fed directly into our synthetic biology roadmap, and has led us to overhaul the way we assess and evaluate the social and ethical dimensions of new grants.” | Patrick Middleton, head of public engagement at the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council, points to synthetic biology as one research field where Sciencewise’s contribution proved particularly useful. “What we learnt from the dialogue fed directly into our synthetic biology roadmap, and has led us to overhaul the way we assess and evaluate the social and ethical dimensions of new grants.” |
| The issue of how to balance evidence, expertise and public values lies at the centre of a recent report on innovation and risk by Sir Mark Walport, the UK’s chief scientific adviser. The nuanced approach that Walport, and his co-author Claire Craig, outline to these issues is another illustration of how far the scientific community’s approach has evolved in recent years. Reflecting on the experience of the HFEA, they suggest that it shows how “a sophisticated regulator, empowered to conduct public debate as part of its work, can deliver advice over a prolonged 10 year period while both science and technology continue to evolve to enable new interventions and treatments.” | The issue of how to balance evidence, expertise and public values lies at the centre of a recent report on innovation and risk by Sir Mark Walport, the UK’s chief scientific adviser. The nuanced approach that Walport, and his co-author Claire Craig, outline to these issues is another illustration of how far the scientific community’s approach has evolved in recent years. Reflecting on the experience of the HFEA, they suggest that it shows how “a sophisticated regulator, empowered to conduct public debate as part of its work, can deliver advice over a prolonged 10 year period while both science and technology continue to evolve to enable new interventions and treatments.” |
| The suite of novel methods and techniques that Sciencewise has developed to support policymakers in designing and running public dialogues reflects a more “experimental” approach to government, as advocated by bodies within Whitehall like the Behavioural Insights Team, and outside like the Alliance for Useful Evidence. Building up, through trial and error, a richer understanding of what works, when and where. | The suite of novel methods and techniques that Sciencewise has developed to support policymakers in designing and running public dialogues reflects a more “experimental” approach to government, as advocated by bodies within Whitehall like the Behavioural Insights Team, and outside like the Alliance for Useful Evidence. Building up, through trial and error, a richer understanding of what works, when and where. |
| And at an international level, Sciencewise has helped to position the UK science community at the forefront of these debates; another study out this week highlights that the UK is increasingly seen as a model for how to undertake dialogue on science and technology by other governments. | And at an international level, Sciencewise has helped to position the UK science community at the forefront of these debates; another study out this week highlights that the UK is increasingly seen as a model for how to undertake dialogue on science and technology by other governments. |
| Of course, there’s still a lot more that could be done to embed such approaches in the everyday business of policymaking. And ever so often, an issue erupts where the heat and immediacy of political controversy means that hard-fought lessons are sidestepped or ignored. But thanks to Sciencewise, and the many thousands of scientists, policymakers and citizens who’ve contributed to its work over the past decade, this is one area where UK science policy has made tangible moves in the right direction. | Of course, there’s still a lot more that could be done to embed such approaches in the everyday business of policymaking. And ever so often, an issue erupts where the heat and immediacy of political controversy means that hard-fought lessons are sidestepped or ignored. But thanks to Sciencewise, and the many thousands of scientists, policymakers and citizens who’ve contributed to its work over the past decade, this is one area where UK science policy has made tangible moves in the right direction. |
| The new independent evaluation notes that Sciencewise still has “a relatively low profile with policymakers (and the public).” I think we in the research community should shout a little louder about our progress in public dialogue. It should also be on our agenda as we enter the next spending review. Investing more in research should of course be a high priority for whatever government we have after 7 May. But so should the ongoing task of talking, listening and bringing people with us. | The new independent evaluation notes that Sciencewise still has “a relatively low profile with policymakers (and the public).” I think we in the research community should shout a little louder about our progress in public dialogue. It should also be on our agenda as we enter the next spending review. Investing more in research should of course be a high priority for whatever government we have after 7 May. But so should the ongoing task of talking, listening and bringing people with us. |
| James Wilsdon (@jameswilsdon) is professor of science and democracy in the Science Policy Research Unit at the University of Sussex. | James Wilsdon (@jameswilsdon) is professor of science and democracy in the Science Policy Research Unit at the University of Sussex. |