Some of the dilemmas of public engagement
I’ve been having interesting conversations with cool people about how public engagement can be made to be a really good use of the public’s time and the taxpayers money and how it can be used to benefit us all. I thought the discipline of writing a blog might help me get it clear.
Here are the issues, some totally at odds with each other, which spring to the top of my mind. There are more, please feel free to add!
‘It’s my money, I want a say in how it’s spent.’
It seems reasonable that the public should have a say in where their money (as taxpayers) is spent and so should have some influence on the focus of research. It’s their money, their life the research is supposed to be enhancing in some way now or in the future and they are the ones taking the risk and the hit when something goes wrong.
…But do I want my Auntie Vera to have any influence on the direction of scientific research?
Nnnnnooooo, absolutely totally none at all! She had a deep distrust of all technologies and people in white coats of any type. But then quite a few people are with her on that and even Lord Winston in his new book Bad Ideas demonstrates the downsides of virtually every innovation we have developed, making for a scary read and slightly justifying the luddite view!
Should the government take notice of Auntie V? And do what? Perhaps tone it down a bit if there’s a lot of voters who think like her? Or totally ignore her views and reinforce her opinion that the government doesn’t listen and to hell with them?
…though people’s views can really be helpful to both sides
A new report from Research Councils UK on public engagement: What’s in it for me, the benefits of public engagement for researchers http://bit.ly/aO1eI5 gives some quite interesting and even moving examples of benefits for the public as well as for researchers in getting engaged with research and product development.
But I’d like to see much more consideration of the benefits to the public themselves. Virtually nothing in the recent expert group reports thinks about these issues from the public’s perspective.
‘But you have a duty as a citizen to engage with science’
Gulp, since when? Professor Winston goes as far as to say that ‘To some extent all the public are answerable for how science is used. If we benefit from scientific progress, we need also to understand that we have a duty to learn more about science so that we can exercise a voice in how it is used, and be aware of the implications if it is misused.’
I have heard a number of commentators recently say that it is part of responsible citizenship to consider and engage on big issues of the day, particularly those about the new boundaries of science and technology.
‘I’m tired, the dog needs a walk & I’ve got the laundry to do’
So let’s go back to my sister the 999 operator. Surely she’s done enough of her ‘duty as a citizen’ flogging her guts out doing weird hours helping the public – (firmly suggesting, for example, that calling 999 because you ‘can’t turn the sound down on the telly’ is perhaps not a good use of police time – a perennial favourite!).
Are we really expecting, on the evenings she doesn’t do nights, drags herself to the gym or god forbid watches TV or even does something fun, that she goes to her town hall to listen to some boffin explaining, even clearly and powerfully, about the use of nanotechnology, or asking her views on Geoengineering? How many of us, at the end of a hard day, feel that it is our duty to get changed and go out participate in a consultation about something we don’t care anything about. Remember she’s not an activist type, didn’t do science at school and is not remotely interested in technology of any type, though she’s happy to have an Ipod and buys green energy!
‘If I listened to my customers I would have given them a faster horse’
Said Henry Ford and he’s quite right. En masse, we’re not an innovative lot. I’m no good at thinking big and innovative thoughts, there are better people than me for that. They usually work in science labs, maybe funky start up businesses, big companies or strange innovation consultancies. Don’t ask me, that’s their job. But on the other hand, I wish someone would invent a teleporter and give me a photographic memory!
‘But I thought the clever people had this sorted?’
This is true of lots of areas of engagement. There is a danger that public engagement is used to avoid thinking hard and making the responsible choices, because we can say that the public don’t care.
It’s not an unreasonable expectation that the people who use our tax money to fund research, the companies who make money out of the products we buy and the government’s we vote and pay for, all sort out the dangerous stuff before it gets to us and make the difficult decisions about how best to use technology for all our good. Ordinary people I speak to in general expect much cleverer people than them to sort this out and get rather worried that their uninformed opinion carries so much weight.
If there’s something wrong I’ll see it on the news’
There is much talk about the loss of trust in business and society and the need to engage the public about the issues to promote ‘risk literacy’, so we don’t all go pear-shaped unnecessarily about a new area of science or technology.
But in fact most people don’t worry about the safety of products or the effect of new technologies. They just assume that everyone is doing what they should and that if there was something going badly wrong they would hear about it on the news. Not sure that trust is really as well founded as it might be.
As an aside, it astonishes me that if there is potentially a bit of glass in some pasta sauce which might potentially injure someone somewhere, but might not – every single bottle is off the supermarket shelves in 24 hours as happened recently. Real problems, like trans fats that are actually harming lots of us, takes years of pressure and research and lobbying to get removed from products. That’s bizarre.
Is GM an example of good citizenship?
One could argue that GM is an excellent example of public involvement in action. The public read about GM in the papers (which was the only place to get information), they listened to intermediaries they trusted, ngos, and on balance they decided they didn’t want any of it.
So let’s say the government and business does a wonderful public engagement on a new technology area or say robotics, geoengineering or some futuristic medical app, but the public feels that it is too risky, uncertain or yucky and despite all that, don’t want it. What if that decision is really bad for society or individuals? What then?
When does the right to know trump doing the right thing?
A surgeon I was speaking to doesn’t really go into any detail with his patients about the fact that robots will be doing certain operations. If they knew they’d have a fit, but it’s the safest and best way of doing a particular aspect of surgery. We want to know, organisations are to engage with their publics about new developments – but where does the right to know trump doing the right thing?
How many ‘publics’ are enough influence policy?
Which got me thinking about Iraq, though not directly relevant. 1 million were supposed to have marched in protest, and allegedly many millions more disagreed with the policy. How many is enough, and if that’s isn’t democracy in action what is?
I’m looking up some research which I understand was done to see actually what policy changes had been made by public engagement. Does what we say really change anything except in isolated cases?
So what does ‘good’ public engagement look like?
The subject for another blog, though it surely has to be meaningful to the participant and the commissioner so that neither time nor money has been wasted. But I do like the look of the Public Compacts which are explored very briefly on page 19 of the recent Science for All report. http://bit.ly/8Ywgnj as a way of exploring how stakeholders can play a role in the development of solutions to collective problems.
Wow Hilary – what a stimulating and overwhelming mind-dump: fodder for half a dozen blogs at least. Thanks!
Isn’t it interesting that, even though the West has adopted democracy as the best of the bunch when it comes to governance, science and technology still seem stuck very much in a technocracy/meritocracy – makes you wonder if, come the revolution, the science community will chuck out all this messy business of participatory governance by the illiterate and ill-informed masses, and get down to getting on with ensuring the “right” decisions are made
Public engagement, like democracy, is complex, tough and, at times, a pain in the butt! But in today’s society, it’s hard to see how it can be avoided. You touch on a number of important issues above, but there are three I would emphasize:
The ethics of opportunity: Not everyone has the time or inclination to get involved in science and technology decision-making, but this should not be used as an excuse to remove this right from them.
Shifts in decision-making influence: Citizens have increasing influence in how science and technology are used – driven by an ever-more connected global society and the spread of participatory governance. If this influence is not to be misguided or abused, smarter citizen engagement is a must.
Responsibility: In a society where decisions are notionally shared, citizens need mechanisms whereby they can be partners in the process.
Although you cringe at the thought of your Auntie Vera being part of a democratic process, and your sister is too bushed to do much, I’m not sure that’s enough of an excuse to hand over power to an elite who think they know what’s best for everyone else.
Not that this is what you were suggesting of course
Indeed, not suggesting that!
Yes, I agree that it is increasingly important to be inclusive and smart about public involvement, which means talking to people in their language not yours, going to where they are, not asking them to come to your science museum or Sci Cafe and ensuring that their input is given weight.
Which brings back to Aunty V again. We know she thinks that pretty much all technology is a mystery and a waste of money, though is coming round to TV as quite useful. We know that the government wants Sci & tech to be at the heart of their growth and innovation strategy and that neanderthal views like that are not really going to have any influence. So the important thing is that everyone is clear about the starting point, the role of the perspectives being solicited and what will be done with them.
Most important of all, we need some sort of narrative from commissioners about how the information was used and why certain perspectives prevailed over others.
I’m worried about you and your auntie (sorry, I just fell over this). I used to do lots of market research and consultation work, and personally I thought the most effective way of consulting non-scientists was to run carefully-staged workshops which combined discussion, reaction, interrogation of scientists etc. Typical local government consultation (listening to whoever turns up) is particularly difficult. You want to flush out the not-very-bothered, as well as the terribly interested. You also want to know what people from a variety of ages and backgrounds think, and then you have an idea.
I would also recommend exploring the dimensions of your problem. I am absolutely intrigued by the way that people happily drop objections to medical uses of biotechnology while fiercely defending against agricultural uses. I would say the aim is to find out how people think, not just what they think. Why is Auntie Vera so very suspicious, for a start?
Hi Alison,
I think certainly the best way of consulting the non-scientist was to do as you say, however, my sister and Aunty V would not attend such a thing if you paid them a lot so you wouldn’t get them by that route either. It is very tricky as you suggest. I think that the researchers need to go the places that the sceptics are, not expect the sceptics to come to them.
I was being tongue in cheek about Aunty V, but there was a serious point behind it – which is what does one do about the individuals who would not want any technological innovation and think science spending a total waste of money?
Does one water down the funding/proposal to take their views into consideration therefore potentially preventing a potentially hugely useful aspect of new technologies, eg medical or energy aspects?
Does one thank her for her views and go ahead with one’s tech innovation because one thinks it’s for the best?
How many Aunty V’s is enough, which is my Iraq point?
Obviously one takes everyone’s views into consideration and try very hard to get as diverse and representative view as possible, but it is what you do with that information, how you reflect it in your decisions and how you communicate who’s opinion you gave most weight to that I am particularly interested in.
Yes, agree with the strange ways we make judgements about risk and benefit. There is some working going on about this in various quarters, but still don’t really know where that leaves us with decisions to take.
Thanks for the comment.
I’ve been thinking on your post for a while. And on why we bother with public engagement with respect to science and emerging technologies. And I think you’ve touched on the nub of it when you say \helpful to both sides\ and \collective problems\.
Understanding the public’s perspectives on science and emerging technologies is crucial, as none of us hold the only way forward. Privileging only the expert no longer makes sense because the issues we’re facing (and the solutions) are more multi-dimensional and complex. A range of views are important, and helpful to both sides, although that doesn’t mean we lend equal weight to points of view (especially those that are in error – although that requires a judgment of some sort too!).
And we do face complex collective problems. People are busy but yet I think people will and do engage on the issues that matter most to them, especially when science engages in a way that is responsive, accessible and relevant.
Thanks Kristen, I totally agree with the need to get multiple perspectives, but the bit that I worry about is precisely the one you have mentioned about ‘those that are in error’. Who’s judgement, who’s values, who decides she is wrong?
When her anti-tech opinion doesn’t get listened to yet again, or to take a less extreme example, the many many members of the environmental movement who are less extreme, don’t want certain applications of a technology because of their potential damage to the environment, which subsequently gets proved correct, why should those millions of people engage and trust the judgers of error ever again?
GM again provides a interesting discussion. I should say at this point, that I had no involvement in GM, am not remotely an expert in it, but come at it from simply a lay point of view, which changes!
Were the public/ngos right to express extreme concern about the technology because the HSE wasn’t there and they didn’t trust the profit making organisations pushing it to have anyone’s interest but their own’s at heart? The HSE is getting there now, we can see the value of certain applications and the problems with others, the world has changed to be benefit of some, to the detriment of others. If we, as a society, had been able to give more thought to the outcomes, would they have been different, would they have been better? I have no idea and can again see the arguments from many of the different perspectives. There is even a disagreement about the benefits, never mind the risks.
How many Aunty V’s is enough to influence policy and business in a democracy is still an issue for me? Especially if it is potentially hugely profitable, garners lots of taxable revenues and we are being walked all over by other countries who don’t care as much. Especially if it is not Aunty V and her luddite views, but reasoned views of ordinary people?
I have no answers by the way, but I do want to think about it some more!!
Thanks again for your comment
Yes, exactly – see that’s it! We (ie scientists and technologists) are okay when it comes to information and correcting non-factual errors, but the question of what should be for the future and who owns the debate about how technology (and therefore the underpinning science) should proceed, is precisely why we should be engaging a broader group of stakeholders – no one know the answer yet. And in instead of asking the public(s) questions about science and technology, maybe we should start by asking questions about how they’d like to be engaged (just a thought – will think some more).
Hilary,
Thanks so much for this post – very interesting indeed.
Could I possibly ask your opinion on something a little different, but slightly related?
I’ve been looking at public engagement not from the perspective of necessarily encouraging the general public to get involved in policy, or deeming that it should be the public’s responsibility to learn more about science, but more as a means of letting folks who are curious about certain subjects, and who have a specific reason to be very interested in those subjects find trustworthy information which is easy to understand.
Take, as an example, someone who has been diagnosed with a disorder and would feel reassured by hearing the facts ‘straight from the horse’s mouth’ from respected figures in that field, rather than articles in the press which may have been altered and sensationalised.
I suppose there may be many wide and varied reasons for a member of the public to suddenly find a new, compelling reason to have a deep interest in any manner of subject.
How do you feel about carrying out work to make it easy for these people to find good, reliable information?
It would be wonderful to get your thoughts on this.
Very best regards,
Nicola
Yes, that’s an interesting area too Nicola and one actually that we have been pondering first in terms of MATTER and also for the development of http://www.nanoandme.org, our public website to help people find trustworthy and useful information, if they are interested, on nano.
I think there are three main things to consider when developing ‘trustworthy’ information, and I am sure there are more!
The organisation doing the communicating has to be trustworthy. Either they need to have no particular agenda or bias, or at least be open about what that is. So you would trust, for example, the cancer or alzheimers charities to give you info on cancers, but you might not trust a company trying to sell you a cancer drug. When we were creating the Responsible Nano Forum which evolved to become MATTER we looked long and hard about this and our multi-stakeholder steering group and the way we operate is designed to be as inclusive, and we hope trustworthy, as possible.
The process of developing the impartial information has to be created in a way which is rigorous and includes all stakeholders in the development. With nano&me we tried quite hard with that. We engaged stakeholders at all stages, including government who set up a group to give us feedback.
The information has to be communicated in easy to understand language – I always think science communicators often try to cram too much science in at the expense of the communication. (Have a look at my rather ranty blog on the subject ‘Bin the S word, it’s the veg in the pasta sauce, if that is of interest!).
The communication has to be in their language not yours, see it through their eyes, not focus just on what you want to get across. Even some of the best experts in the world find that difficult, especially as the subjects are usually so complex, to simplify them does not do them justice. But it has to be done. Lots of TV programmes doing that pretty well at the moment. That was our big thing about nano&me, though a member of the public said it was ‘a bit like homework’ which is true, despite our efforts!
I think impartial information which helps the public get to grips with complex issues is totally essential if we are to engage them in some of the difficult social, ethical and environmental issues around science and technology. Who will deliver it and who will pay is the big issue.
By the way, I would love to do nuclear&me, GM&me, synbio&me and geoengineering&me if anyone has any cash!
Hilary,
Thanks so much for responding.
I’m very interested in what you wrote about \The information has to be communicated in easy to understand language – I always think science communicators often try to cram too much science in at the expense of the communication.\
I’ve been building a tool which allows academics (and other specialists) to communicate their research in an engaging way, using short (under 3 mins) video summaries. Each video is backed up by supporting materials (typically research papers and researchers’ homepages). This means that the author of video is freed up to focus on what’s particularly cool/ interesting about their work, and maybe the main applications of their work, rather than explaining anything in too much detail… because if anyone wants to verify any aspect of what they’ve said they can simply one-click out to the supporting materials.
Here are a couple of example pages:
Chris Bishop – http://vidiowiki.com/watch/b4a396h/
Andy Clark – http://vidiowiki.com/watch/0yS860tYivAg/
The site also allows to you find related research using the link map at the bottom of the page.
It would be great to have sections on nuclear&me, GM&me, synbio&me and geoengineering&me!
Best regards,
Nicola
On a related point, there was a recent article in CNN titled, “Fear of science will kill us” by guest writer Michael Specter, a staff writer at The New Yorker and author of “Denialism: How Irrational Thinking Hinders Scientific Progress, Harms the Planet and Threatens our Lives.”
Specter talks about how the public’s growing fear (and, often, outright denial) of science and reason, threatens many areas of scientific progress. As an example, he mentions vaccines, and says, “It doesn’t seem to matter how often vaccines are proved safe or supplements are shown to offer nothing of value. When people don’t like facts, they ignore them.”
In other words, no matter how much compelling evidence there is about the benefits of a new technology, people listen only to what they want to hear. Could this fear/denialism be the real reason behind our dear Aunty Vera’s paranoia about technologies?
Here’s the link: http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/04/13/specter.denying.science/index.html
That is a really interesting link, thanks Aarti. There must be work done on this, I have seen some and will try to dig it out for another blog. Maybe one for Andrew in his new job!
Hi Hilary,
Really interesting blog! I’m late to it, I’m afraid.
Reading it made me wonder what you think about this three-way typology of the purposes of public engagement
http://www.sciencewise-erc.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=41&sid=35fce519650b4514d00005866c2ee644
Depending on whether the controversy is about facts, interests or values, it might be better to engage with stakeholders rather than ‘the public’.
Cheers
Penny