Roland Jackson wants continuous exchange

I welcome this revision of the guidelines on scientific analysis in policy-making, recognising as it does the need to accommodate improvements over recent years in risk management and public engagement.

The two consultation questions asked cover peer review and evaluation, but I should like to take a wider view.

The new draft guidelines refer both to the excellent report Policy through Dialogue of the Council for Science and Technology (CST) and the OST's own guidelines for public dialogue, published in the government's response to the nanotechnology report from the Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering. Implemented in their full spirit, these will lead to the real change of culture that the CST wishes to see.

Consultation is not enough

However, if the government is to take public input seriously, it needs to do more than simply seek specific consultation on particular policy issues, important though that is. The structure of the consultation on the Energy White Paper was a good example of such a specific approach, and the ambitious attempts of the Committee on Radioactive Waste Management (CORWM) illustrate its difficulties and complexities.

Processes such as horizon-scanning now inform the wider policy background.  Just as they provide intelligence about science, we need intelligence about public opinion, attitudes, values and knowledge.  This simply does not exist now, and it should be continuously collected, collated, interpreted, and openly shared.

Understand public knowledge too

It is just as important to understand public knowledge as public values and priorities. Policy-making that is out of step with public knowledge is doomed to lack of understanding and likely to lead to loss of support and trust.

Take, for example, climate change and energy policy. In a Scottish Executive representative survey in 2002, just 37 per cent of respondents said that coal and oil power generation produce greenhouse gases, and 29 per cent thought nuclear power stations do likewise. I worry that we severely underestimate the communication that is needed with the public on the relevant science and technology.

There is little incentive for people to explore their understanding and improve their knowledge if consultation is seen to be sporadic and limited. If the understandings and views of policy-makers and the public are to be brought closer together, we need a more widespread and continuous discourse than currently takes place. We also need much clearer communication and explanation of policy decisions, demonstrating how they take into account public knowledge and perspectives. That requires a national infrastructure for public engagement and communication that we do not currently possess.

Roland Jackson is the Chief Executive of the BA