Can the public be effectively consulted on science policy?

Many thanks to everyone who attended the CSPC 2009 and made it a great success. I was deeply impressed by the energy of the delegates and the depth of the discussion, and I hope we can carry this momentum forward!

One of the (many) questions I’ve been mulling over since the conference is whether the public can be meaningfully consulted on science policy issues (allocation of research funds, regulation of emerging technologies like nanotechnology, synthetic biology, etc), and if so, how this might best be done. The “democratization of science” seems like a paradox… on some level, science may be an inherently elitist activity - for the simple reason that a lot of specialized knowledge is required before one can be familiar with the cutting edge in any field.

I notice that The Mark News (with whom the CSPC has partnered to produce a “Science Policy in Canada” topics page) has an informal internet poll in the left sidebar, asking the question: “Can the public be effectively consulted on the direction of science?”:

http://www.themarknews.com/topics/1

I’ve checked a few times in the last week or so, and the response has been 60-70% “no”.

A figure that was tossed around in one the sessions at the CSPC was that 20% of the general public is “literate” when it comes to S&T issues. (That said, one the enduring one-liners from the conference was: “Enough about the science-illiterate public… what about the public-illiterate scientists?!”, so maybe speaking in these terms doesn’t accurately reflect the shared responsibility here). One questioner from the floor mused that perhaps we should be prepared to accept that the vast majority of the population will be content to view science as a “black box” from which they’re happy to receive outputs (new technologies) without caring about what goes on inside (scientific knowledge and the scientific method).

I thought one of the more interesting proposals for engagement of the public in the formulation of science policy came from Chantal Barriault, Co-Director of the Science Communication Graduate Diploma Program (offered jointly by Laurentian University and Science North) in the "science journalism" session. Apparently, so-called “citizens forums” have been employed extensively in Europe, and are beginning to see some limited use in Canada. The basic idea: (1) gather together a group of volunteers from the “general public”; (2) give them the opportunity to become informed about the issue at hand (over several weekends, they learn about the topic and are given access to experts in the field); (3) once they’ve been brought up to speed on the area, ask them for their reasoned judgment on the issue. Apparently, citizens with this type of targeted training often reach similar recommendations as the “experts”.

Although it’s arguable whether volunteers for such a “citizens forum” would truly be representative of Mr Joe Public (since they’re self-selecting and likely have a pre-existing interest in science), this idea still seems smart… and intuitively appealing, too. After all, these days, science is vast and knowledge has become highly specialized - even an active researcher and “professional” scientist would need to be brought up to speed on a scientific topic that’s outside their field of expertise.

Citizens forums, it seems, may be an effective way of soliciting science-policy advice from a public that may not initially have the knowledge required to provide an informed assessment… but which has the capacity to do so, given the right tools.