Nigel Eady is not convinced

Public engagement, participation, dialogue, call it what you will, everyone’s learning the jargon. But what are the impacts of these approaches on science and democracy? Can scientists and non-governmental organisations both benefit? A workshop (People Power?) convened by Demos and Greenpeace last November provided an opportunity for participation experts, scientists and NGOs from across the EU to discuss the issues.

New initiatives

The last year has seen a number of significant developments in public engagement. Six Beacons for Public Engagement have been announced and also see Blazing a trail for public engagement. Another initiative, sciencehorizons, has engaged with people across the country on the future of science and technology. Gordon Brown even announced, in September 2007, a programme of citizens’ juries to probe public views on issues like the NHS and the impact of the internet. The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, Hazel Blears, has also announced pilot projects to give communities control of council budgets through local debates and ballots.

Despite the apparent mood for dialogue, the UK government’s consultation on nuclear power was heavily criticised by Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth, who alleged that decisions had been made before the public engagement was complete.

Challenges for NGOs

With public participation increasingly integrated into decision-making processes, NGOs must decide whether to be actively involved or not. Good engagement involves all interested parties in a productive conversation about an issue. This may not suit the more radical approaches that a campaigning NGO may advocate.

However, Greenpeace has explored nanotechnology, amongst other subjects, using these sorts of deliberative processes.(1) The result has been an interesting and balanced view, encouraging research into sustainable technologies whilst highlighting important concerns.(2),(3) Nevertheless, there is a complex path for NGOs to negotiate as these new models of politics develop.

Same old issues

Across the EU, there is increasing interest in these sorts of approaches to science and democracy. For example, the Citizen Participation in Science and Technology project is seeking to facilitate knowledge transfer by building a database of projects and expertise.(4) It was rightly pointed out at the workshop that developments in public engagement have been initiated in a number of countries.

Nonetheless, these discussions have been ongoing for many years and very little corporate memory seems to have developed. There is a lot of talk but much less action. The same old questions remain. How do we avoid consultation fatigue and involve those consulted in further discussions? How do we value individual contributions and ensure these processes have a legacy? How many people are involved? Often not many. Can processes be scaled up to benefit and empower more people? Does a deliberative process provide value for money? Is an opinion poll more valuable?

As ever, in these discussions, there were some interesting observations. But Robin Grove-White’s historical perspective provided a healthy reality check. Has much has changed since GM Nation in 2003?(5) How do we move the conversation on?

At the BA, we are only too aware of the danger of regurgitating the same old discussions. The forthcoming Science Communication Conference could easily fall into the same trap. We value input from the science communication community in moving the conversation forwards.

Culture change?

A pertinent criticism of many processes presently being commissioned is that they are merely deliberative research – conversations with clearly-defined boundaries. In most cases, as with the jury model, there is a topic for discussion, based on an institution or funder’s interests, for example the nuclear energy debate. Interesting no doubt; but  what of citizen-driven agendas? Can research themes be shaped from the bottom up?

Public engagement appears to have been more fully embraced by institutions in the UK than in other European countries. It would appear, though, that many UK institutions still have a lot of learning to do and that culture change is proceeding slowly, if at all. Often, decision-makers can talk the talk but not walk the walk. Workshop participants attested to key decision-makers failing to show their faces at a consultation they had commissioned. However, politicians are keen to be photographed in listening mode. Public engagement that involves citizens in the co-production of knowledge still seems a long way off.

For now the question is: will we still be having these sorts of conversations in five years’ time? Does the mood for public dialogue reflect a shift in power to the people? Only time will tell.

References

(1) See http://www.nanojury.org.uk/

(2) See http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/me
dia/reports/ future-technologies-todays-choices

(3) See http://www.nanojury.org.uk/pdfs/
greenpeace_reflections.pdf

(4) See http://www.cipast.org/

(5) See http://www.aebc.gov.uk/aebc/
reports/gm_nation_report_final.pdf

Nigel Eady is Science in Society Officer at the BA