Sue Mayer argues that citizens must agitate for change

Over the past eight years, there has been a move away from leaving everything to the experts to a situation where engagement with the public is expected and valued. Openness and transparency are the buzz words. The Chief Scientist’s guidelines on scientific advice1 is one example of this progressive new approach. But this new rhetoric is creating expectations that are not, by and large, being met.

No change

Nanotechnology is the new platform technology that is being promoted as the basis of future economic success. Following the controversy with biotechnology, there have been efforts to take forward the new culture of public engagement with nanotechnology. The Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering have said unexpected and welcome things, but there is no evidence that the juggernaut of nanotechnology has wavered as a result.

Openness and transparency should also have consequences. At the moment, openness is taken to mean that people should have access to minutes of meetings or papers previously unavailable. If people do not like what they see, what is to be done? ‘Nothing’, seems to be the current response.

Government inaction

Public engagement often leads to a broader set of questions than is normally posed. However, experts have a tendency to keep questions to the technical which chimes with political instincts to narrow debate. Rather than allowing this wider base of inquiry, the government disbanded the Agriculture and Environment Biotechnology Commission (AEBC) and failed to replace it with another body. The AEBC was put in place to fill the gap identified by government in the regulation of GMOs that led to a lack of consideration of the ethical, social and wider environmental issues. But its advice was difficult for government, and despite its promise of a strategic body to consider agriculture more widely, it has not emerged.

Trust undermined

The anxiety about experts and public engagement comes from a desire to restore public trust in decision making. The problem that the new rhetoric has exposed is that if people do not like what they see and do not agree with the values that are being expressed, they will expect change. If the outcomes of public engagement exercises are marginalised, this will fuel cynicism and undermine trust further. So there is a need to turn rhetoric into reality.

However, one positive effect of the new language on experts and the public is that it opens opportunities for public scrutiny and to demand accountability. Experts and policy makers are unlikely to share their power willingly. It is only likely to be as a result of persistent inquiry and pressure from citizens that real change will come.

Reference

1. Guidelines 2000: Scientific Advice and Policy Making

Dr Sue Mayer is the Director of Genewatch