Science, governance and the impact of public dialogue

SCIENCE COMMUNICATION CONFERENCE 201214 & 15 May 2012, Kings Place, London

Chair : Laura Bowater, University of East Anglia

Speakers: Darren Bhattachary & Andrew Hunter, TNS BMRBJason Chilvers, University of East Anglia

Respondent: Roland Jackson, British Science Association and Sciencewise

What we want to do today

1What we want to get out of today

2Setting the scene

3Findings from the literature

4Findings from the interviews

5Reflections from Roland

6Over to you

7Feedback

8Concluding thoughts

What do we mean by…

• Public engagement that specifically seeks to inform decisions or policy

• Not explicitly concerned with raising the profile of science or wider science communication activities

Public dialogue

• The people who make decisions in science organisations – namely those responsible for the leadership, funding and regulation of S&T in the UK

Policy makers

Beyond public engagement?

• The ongoing challenge of science, governance and public trust (BSE, GM, Climategate…)

• From PUS to PES

• Impact of public dialogue initiatives on commissioning and target institutions remains unclear

• Where next?

From public engagement as an end in itself

to ‘governing in the public interest’

Science, Trust and Public Engagement: Exploring pathways to good governance

BIS/Sciencewise-ERC project (2010-2011)

Aim: “to better understand how science organisations are governed, the responsiveness to public concerns in this context, and potential ways to improve this”

3 research stages:

• Literature review - analysis of 17 public dialogues and emerging governance responses

• In-depth interviews - 40 senior decision makers in science organisations

• Workshop – Royal Society, February 2011

The Sciencewise Dialogues

Public concerns about science governance

1. The purpose of science and technologyWhat are the motivations for developing the science and technology? Whose interests are they serving? Are they necessary? Are there alternatives?

2. Trustworthiness of institutions Relative lack of trust in government to act in the public interest – concerns about perceived proximity between government and the interests of industry

3. Feelings of powerlessness and exclusion People feel ‘kept in the dark’ and excluded from decisions over S&T - they express a desire to feed their values into the science and innovation process

4. Speed and direction of science and innovationConcerns over the pace of scientific and technological development – exceeds scope for ethical and regulatory oversight

5. Equity, ethics and the culture of scienceView that the culture of science discourages scientists from voicing concerns over potential risks/uncertainties and social/ethical considerations

Emerging science governance responsesPublic Values, Influence and Engagement

Public Transparency, Scrutiny, Accountability

Genomics

• Public consultation (e.g. GM Nation?)

• Crowdsourcing and open innovation

• ‘Uninvited’ public engagement

• Independent advisory bodies (AEBC, HGC, FSA)

• Transparency mechanisms

• Public scrutiny/representation (e.g. lay members)

Nanotechnology

• Upstream engagement / public dialogue

• Real time technology assessment

• Anticipatory governance

• Voluntary codes

• Responsible innovation

Climate Science

• Science communication

• Participatory integrated assessment

• Open data / open coding

• Institutional redesign (e.g. IPCC)

Implications

• Some public concerns at least partly responded to (e.g. inclusion)

• For other concerns responses are less evident (e.g. over the purposes of emerging S&T and speed of innovation)

• Need for a more systemic perspective of the science governance system

• Need to understand the missing link:

What mediates institutional responses and responsiveness to public concerns about the governance of science and technology?

1. Science governance is expert led - efforts to reflect public values remain largely marginal as public concerns don't resonate

More appetite for engaging public around wider strategic goals for research

Less appetite to involve public directly in funding decisions

Expert led model of

governance

Key people:CEOs,

Ministers, Governing

Boards, Senior Staff, The

Executive/Senior Civil Servants

2. The big strategic issue is the economy. This can create opportunities and threats for new science governance models such as dialogue.

It’s the economy, stupid

3. Science organisations feel accountable to their peers, funders and business. The public are a lower level accountability.

Societal accountability was seen as the lowest priority and generally not embedded in routine structures and practices of organisations.

Legal and administrative

Constituency – e.g other scientists

Customers e.g. business

Public

Higher level accountability

Lower level accountability

4. Public dialogue exercises have had greater impact in organisations where there is senior support and structures to integrate dialogue in policy.

Organisational cultures play a key part in the relationship between engagement and decision making. Science based organisations expressed conflicting cultures: being at once innovative, creative and open; as well as inward looking, elitist and over centralised.

Supportive CEO

Managers willing to take risks

Decentralised rather than hierarchical structure

Engagement led by policy rather than comms

Public engagement had more impact where:

5. Being open and transparent doesn't necessarily mean organisations account for public views in decision-making

Openness and transparency are necessary but not sufficient conditions for good governance.

Figure 1: Relative openness of organisations

BusinessesAcademies/

Membership organisations

Regulators

Government departments;

research funders

Increasing openness and transparency

5 Implications

Focus on governance

in the public

interest rather than

public engagemen

t

Focus science policy

debate on social

outcomes rather than risks and

benefits of a

technology

Lead from policy

directorates rather

than comms

Rebrand SIS

committees and look for

opportunities to align

them to internal interests

Make better use of

collaboration and existing structure

s for engagement

Science, governance and the impact of public dialogue

SCIENCE COMMUNICATION CONFERENCE 201214 & 15 May 2012, Kings Place, London

Roland Jackson, British Science Association and Sciencewise

Reflections: what is the public interest?

Generalising from the synthetic biology public dialogue:

• What is the purpose?

• Why do you want to do it?

• What are you going to gain from it?

• What else is it going to do?

• How do you know you are right?

Reflections: levels of engagement

Recognise the different contexts in which the ‘public interest’ is relevant:

• Funder (e.g. BIS, BBSRC)

• Institution (e.g. Rothamsted)

• Research Group

• Researcher

Over to you…

1. To what extent do these findings make sense to you?

2. How can science organisations better account for public concerns about the governance of science?

3. What does this mean for you in your own role?