Framing the Scientific Citizen

1
Framing the Scientific Citizen

• Alan Irwin

-
2
The new scientific governance?

• The proposed action plan marks the beginning
  of a long process, the objective of which is to
  change the relationship between science and
  society.
• European Commission, 2002

3
House of Lords Select Committee on Science and
Technology

• We recommend. that direct dialogue with the
  public should move from being an optional add-on
  to science-based policy-making. And should
  become a normal and integral part of the process
• 
  (2000)

4
Engaging with engagement

• Scientific governance as problematised
• Drive to European knowledge economy
• Rise of deliberative democracy
• Social scientific critique of deficit theory
• Local-global relations

5
Framing the Scientific Citizen

• Moving (partly) away from a debate over whether
  public engagement is a good or bad thing
• Towards the empirical, but theoretically-informed,
  scrutiny of specific initiatives
• Exploring the construction of the scientific
  citizen in particular cases
• The practice of engagement is at least as
  important as the broad principle

6
Science, Technology and Governance in Europe
(STAGE)

• www.stage-research.net

7
A typology of governance

• Discretionary government (and science) acting
  in the public interest
• Corporatist stakeholders producing workable
  compromises
• Educational creating an informed public for
  science
• Market establishing the institutional
  conditions for economic success
• Agonistic making policy under conditions of
  confrontation
• Deliberative improving the quality of decisions
  through lay engagement

8
STAGE case-studies

• ICTs (Finland, Greece, The Netherlands, UK)
• Biotechnology (Denmark, Finland, Greece, The
  Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Sweden, UK)
• Environment (Greece, The Netherlands, Portugal,
  Sweden)
• Country specific examples (Denmark, Finland,
  Norway, Portugal, Sweden, UK)

9
The 2003 UK GM debate
Agriculture and Environment Biotechnology
Commission as social innovation    Public debate
3rd June 18th July, 2003   
10
Debating GM

• Arguments over time and resources
• Not offering a simple yes/no to the
  commercialisation of GM crops in the UK
• One of three main strands science and
  economics also

11
GM Nation? Main findings

• People are generally uneasy about GM
• The more people engage, the harder their
  attitudes
• Little support for early commercialisation
• Widespread mistrust of government and
  multi-nationals

12
GM Nation? the public debate

• Not yet if ever

13
Debating the debate

• House of Commons committee an opportunity
  missed
• Stakeholder capture?
• Separation from economic and technical questions
• Relationship to government decision-making

14
The Deliberative mode

• Problematic measurement of policy impact (mutual
  shaping)
• Exclusion by composition
• Persistent scepticism real or legitimatory?
• Framing the debate (specific/general closing
  down/opening up)

15
STAGE Implications

• 1. Tendency across Europe to view public
  deliberation as a one-off hurdle
• 2. Considerable insulation between engagement
  and mainstream policy
• 3. Limited framing of debate
• 4. The importance of process
• 5. The problematic character of consensus

16
STAGE implications

• 6. The challenge for NGOs as well as government
• 7. Rhetoric running ahead of practice
• 8. Separation of ethics/values from expertise
• 9. Arms length relationship with decision-making
• 10. Questions of national autonomy

17
Conclusions for public engagement and deliberation

• Statements of intent must be set against actual
  outcomes
• Government views engagement as a complementary
  process
• Rapid return to business as usual
• New deficit model?

18
Conclusions

• Partiality and fragility of initiatives to date
• Deeper commitments to science and economic
  liberalism
• Institutional lack of reflexivity
• Need to explore broader implications of enhanced
  public deliberation for science and democracy.