Role of the Public in Governance of Science and Technology

1
Role of the Public in Governance of Science and
Technology

• 5.11.2007, Karoliina Snell
• Department of Sociology, University of Helsinki
• http//www.valt.helsinki.fi/staff/ksnell/
• Changing Dynamics of Science and Technology
  Finland in a global perspective

2
Background

• Doctoral thesis on Social responsibility in
  developing new biotechnology
• Project Re-examining patient participation in
  biomedical research
• Changing context for mediating public concern in
  the assessment of biotechnoscience (COMPASS)
• Science, technology and governance in Europe
  (STAGE)

3
Two perspectives on the ordinary people

• Role of the Public in ST governance
• Public understanding of science
• Public participation in ST
• Different roles of the public
• Examples form Finnish biotechnology
• Attitudes and Opinions

4
Why the public? (1)

• Science and technology traditionally expert-led
  systems
• Deficit model lay people lack knowledge and
  competence to make decisions about st
• First, the need to educate public is recognised
  both in social science research and on policy
  level.
• ? Public Understanding of Science (PUS)

5
PUS-thinking

• People need to be educated to understand science
  and technology
• Understanding increases acceptance
• Top-down model
• Difference made between scientific facts and
  irrational emotions

6
Why the public? (2)

• More and more demands to open up ST
• Not only by education and increasing
  understanding
• But also by participation and inclusion
  indecision-making
• To increase trust, transparency and acceptance
• To generate economic growth and
  competitiveness!!!
• ? Public Engagement in Science (PES)

7
PES-thinking

• Lay people have important experience-based
  knowledge
• Values and opinions need to be heard and
  respected and utilised
• Two-way communication
• Participation increases acceptance
• Common effort

8
PUS and PES

• PES is the new normative model
• In practice PUS dominates in Finland (and in
  Europe)
• Policies are mixtures of both

9
European Commission Policies

• Science, society and citizen in Europe, EC 2000
  
• A true dialogue must therefore be instituted
  between science and society. There have been a
  great many initiatives in this area over the last
  few years consensus conferences, citizens
  juries, national and regional consultations,
  on-line forums, participative foresight
  programmes, etc. have emerged to satisfy this
  need for mutual understanding. Member States and
  the Commission must foster this type of dialogue
  at all levels European, national, regional and
  local.
• Life sciences and biotechnology EC 2001
• "Life sciences and biotechnology have given rise
  to significant public attention and debate. The
  Commission welcomes this public debate as a sign
  of civic responsibility and involvement. Life
  sciences and biotechnology should continue to be
  accompanied and guided by societal dialogue."

10

• Science and society action plan, EC 2002
• The relationship between science, technology and
  innovation, on the one hand, and society, on the
  other, must be reconsidered. Science activities
  need to centre around the needs and aspirations
  of Europes citizens to a greater extent than at
  present.
• Emphasis on PUS and PES education, awareness,
  involvement, responding to public needs

11
Science and Society Ministry of Education in
Finland, 2004

• Finland has concentrated in the st policies more
  on other issues than the public
• different ministries, universities, research
  institutes and other actors investigate in their
  field of administration the possibilities to
  arrange and coordinate open discussion events and
  consensus conferences with different NGOs about
  current questions of development, that directly
  affect ordinary citizens.
• actors in science policy inform of the central
  goals and plans and incorporate in the
  preparation of research programmes, within
  possibilities, also representatives of the
  utilisators of research. If needed, also other
  actors, like NGOs, can be herd.

12

• From the EC
• a true dialogue
• mutual understanding
• welcomes this public debate as a sign of civic
  responsibility and involvement
• needs and aspirations of Europes citizens

13

• In Finland, emphasis more on PUS than PES
• Participation and possibilities for opening
  decision-making are made conditional
• different ministries, universities, research
  institutes and other actors investigate in their
  field of administration the possibilities to
  arrange and coordinate open discussion events and
  consensus conferences with different NGOs about
  current questions of development, that directly
  affect ordinary citizens.
• actors in science policy inform of the central
  goals and plans and incorporate in the
  preparation of research programmes, within
  possibilities, also representatives of the
  utilisators of research. If needed, also other
  actors, like NGOs, can be herd.

14
Typology of governance

• Further elaboration of PUS/PES thinking
• 5 ways of incorporating the public into
  governance of science and technology.
  STAGE-project (Hagendijk Kallerud 2004)
• Discretionary governance. In discretionary
  governance the public is left outside of the
  policymaking which takes place with no explicit
  interaction with the public or other
  stakeholders. Decisions are taken without neither
  formal nor informal input to the process by any
  group outside the governing bodies.

15

• Educational governance. This form of governance
  is based on the enlightenment or deficit model.
  People need to be educated and informed, so that
  they understand and accept science and technology
  and their applications.
• Deliberative governance. Different kind of
  institutional innovations that are guided
  deliberativist conceptions of democratic
  politics. Focus is on the creation of
  arrangements that may facilitate lay
  participation, enhance the role of rational
  public debate, and provide new means to achieve
  political consensus. There is emphasis on equal
  access and that no one voice should be seen as a
  priori more valid than others.

16

• Corporatist governance. In corporatist
  governance, real differences of interests between
  stakeholders are recognized to be at stake, and
  solutions that may bridge the differences are
  sought within closed processes of deliberation
  and negotiation. Corporatist governance is more
  or less exclusively located in the state politics
  dimension, its dynamics pulls the policy process
  away from the public arena dimension.
• Market governance. In market governance, the
  public participates in, and on the terms of, the
  market - as customers and consumers. The public
  assesses and influences, then, science and
  technology policy post hoc, after the completion
  of the innovation process, by their decisions to
  buy or not to buy a product.

17

• Agonistic governance. Agonistic governance takes
  place under conditions of confrontation and
  adversity, when decisions have to be made in a
  political context where positions are strongly
  opposed, stakes are high, compromises are not
  easily found, and conditions are not in favour of
  processes for arriving at conclusions through
  negotiation and debate. Then direct action,
  boycotts, demonstrations etc. may be salient
  parts of the process.

18
Different types of pubic in Finnish biotechnology
policy

• Comparison with EU policies
• How lay people are perceived in policies
• Active or passive?
• Responsible agents or targets of action?
• Citizens Consumers
• Human beings Population

19

• Citizens
• In EU documents presented as active participators
  in governance of science and technology
• In Finland passive, opinions gathered through
  surveys citizens not active, but important
• Consumers
• The most common term both in EU and Finnish
  policies
• Active on the market not in societal
  decision-making
• Choosing to buy or not to buy after the products
  have been made active consumerism on the
  policy-level

20

• Human Beings
• Ethical subjects and objects
• Decisions about themselves, not about society
• Health and way of life
• Population
• Targets of action
• Enlightenment, control, utilisation (population
  as a resource)

21
Example Law on Gene Technology (377/1995)

• My research on types of publics made in early
  2000 has Finland changed?
• Law originally from 1995 (Finland joined the EU)
• Renewals in 2000 and 2004
• In 2000, a new passage about public hearing
• "If the Board for Gene Technology sees it
  appropriate, it can decide, that in certain cases
  concerning the usage in closed spaces or in cases
  related to research and development trials the
  opinions of some groups or the public can be
  heard. The hearings should take into account what
  has been enacted in 32 about concealment of
  confidential information." (36 a )

22

• The advisory board on biotechnologys memo on
  public hearing in 2003
• public hearing was translated as yleisön
  kuuleminen hearing of the audience, not
  hearing of the citizens because the term citizens
  was seen to be too restricting
• Thoughts on active or passive hearing passive
  was chosen.

23

• Hearing and information communication related
  to it can be divided into passive and active
  hearing. In passive hearing information is spread
  as widely as possible but no special group is
  targeted. The main target of passive hearing is
  the audience so that all have a possibility to
  get information about the hearing and be heard.
• Active hearings can be for example different
  targeted announcements, surveys and hearings. The
  method of hearing and its target has to be
  considered with each case. The object of active
  hearing can be for example NGOs or those special
  groups in the test locality that the issue
  concerns, like next door neighbours and farmers
  including ecofarmers. (BTNK 2003, 10-11)

24
In 2004, a new passage (36 b ) about public
hearing was added

• The Board for Gene Technology shall consult the
  public (audience) in regard to a planned
  deliberate release into the environment for any
  other purpose than for placing on the market. The
  Board shall inform about having received the
  above-mentioned application at least in the
  Official Gazette (Virallinen lehti).
• At least the following particulars shall be
  reported in the Official Gazette or other media
• 1) the right of access of the public to documents
  regarding the deliberate release for any other
  purpose than for placing on the market
• 2) at which agency and how the access to the
  documents is arranged
• 3) possibility to obtain a copy of the
  application document
• 4) to which authority written opinions shall be
  addressed and
• 5) 60 days time limit for consulting and when
  the time limit expires.
• The consulting and the supplying of documents are
  subject to the provisions of section 32 on
  confidentiality

25

• There are no unambiguous means for hearing of
  the public. Many above presented means of science
  communication offer in their part these
  possibilities for example different science
  events are occasions, where a citizen can
  encounter science and scientists. Also Internet
  offers different possibilities to inform
  citizens. In some cases it can be reasonable for
  example already in planning stage of research
  programmes to invite along representatives of
  other sectors in society, like users of research
  or representatives of NGOs in the field. It needs
  to be attended that also in the reporting stages
  of research projects, the research information
  spreads also outside the scientific community.
  (Ministry of Education 2004
• Task How do ordinary citizens participate?

26
Public participation in Finnish ST policy

• More PUS than PES education and providing
  information than actual participation
• Public transformed to stakeholders which includes
  industry and other users of information
• Participation is seen conditional if the
  experts see participation necessary

27
Problems and inadequacy of PES

• Participation is seen normative
• Knowledge interest do not concur
• Decision-makers want new and relevant
  information or something to legitimate
  decision-making
• Lay people want relevant information for them
• For example diet advice regarded naïve and
  confusing
• Positive and maintained ignorance it is not my
  job, the experts know better
• Pure and real knowledge or ordinary people
• Who represents who?
• Does public hearing result into something?

28

• Actual practices proven to be difficult and
  challenging
• How to combine different traditions?
• Academic peer review and participation of
  citizens in deciding about financing of research
• Representative or participatory democracy
• How to incorporate actual opinions and attitudes?

29
Some literature

• Häyrinen-Alesatlo Kallerud (eds.)
  (2004)Mediating Public concern in Biotechnology.
  NIFU raport 2/2004. (www.nifustep.no)
• Irwin Wynne (eds.) (1996) Misunderstanding
  Science? The Public Reconstruction of Science and
  Technology. Cambridge University Press,
  Cambridge.
• Public Understanding of Science,
  http//pus.sagepub.com/
• STAGE Science, Technology and Governance in
  Europe (www.stage-research.net)