1. Science, governance and the impact
of public dialogue
SCIENCE COMMUNICATION CONFERENCE 2012
14 & 15 May 2012, Kings Place, London
Chair : Laura Bowater, University of East Anglia
Speakers: Darren Bhattachary & Andrew Hunter, TNS BMRB
Jason Chilvers, University of East Anglia
Respondent: Roland Jackson, British Science Association and
Sciencewise

2. What we want to do today
1 5
What we want to get out of today Reflections from Roland
2 6
Setting the scene Over to you
3 7
Findings from the literature Feedback
4 8
Findings from the interviews Concluding thoughts

3. What do we mean by…
Public • Public engagement that specifically seeks to inform
decisions or policy
• Not explicitly concerned with raising the profile of
dialogue science or wider science communication activities
Policy • The people who make decisions in science
organisations – namely those responsible for the
makers leadership, funding and regulation of S&T in the UK

4. Beyond public engagement?
• The ongoing challenge of science, governance and public
trust (BSE, GM, Climategate…)
• From PUS to PES
• Impact of public dialogue initiatives on commissioning and
target institutions remains unclear
• Where next?
From public engagement as an end in itself
to ‘governing in the public interest’

5. Science, Trust and Public Engagement:
Exploring pathways to good governance
BIS/Sciencewise-ERC project (2010-2011)
Aim: “to better understand how science organisations are governed, the
responsiveness to public concerns in this context, and potential ways to
improve this”
3 research stages:
• Literature review - analysis of 17 public dialogues and emerging
governance responses
• In-depth interviews - 40 senior decision makers in science organisations
• Workshop – Royal Society, February 2011

6. The Sciencewise Dialogues
Model of Public Engagement
Dialogue Project Upstream Honest Issue
Broker Advocate
Animals containing human material (2010) ü
Big energy shift (2008–2009) ü
Community X-Change (2005–2008) ü ü
Drugsfutures (2006–2008) ü
Energy 2050 pathways (2010–2011) ü
Forensic use of DNA (2007–2008) ü
Geoengineering (2010) ü ü
Hybrids and chimeras (2006) ü
Industrial biotechnology (2008) ü ü
Landscape and ecosystem futures (2011–) ü
Nanodialogues (2005–2007) ü
Low carbon communities challenge (2010–2011) ü
Risky business (2005–2006) ü
Science horizons (2006–2007) ü
Stem cells (2007–2008) ü
Synthetic biology (2009–2010) ü
Trustguide (2005–2006) ü

7. Public concerns about science governance
1. The purpose of science and technology
What are the motivations for developing the science and technology? Whose
interests are they serving? Are they necessary? Are there alternatives?
2. Trustworthiness of institutions
Relative lack of trust in government to act in the public interest – concerns about
perceived proximity between government and the interests of industry
3. Feelings of powerlessness and exclusion
People feel „kept in the dark‟ and excluded from decisions over S&T - they express
a desire to feed their values into the science and innovation process
4. Speed and direction of science and innovation
Concerns over the pace of scientific and technological development – exceeds
scope for ethical and regulatory oversight
5. Equity, ethics and the culture of science
View that the culture of science discourages scientists from voicing concerns
over potential risks/uncertainties and social/ethical considerations

8. Emerging science governance responses
Public Values, Influence Public Transparency,
and Engagement Scrutiny, Accountability
• Public consultation (e.g. GM • Independent advisory bodies
Nation?) (AEBC, HGC, FSA)
• Crowdsourcing and open • Transparency mechanisms
Genomics innovation • Public scrutiny/representation
• „Uninvited‟ public (e.g. lay members)
engagement
• Upstream engagement / • Voluntary codes
public dialogue • Responsible innovation
Nanotechnology • Real time technology
assessment
• Anticipatory governance
• Science communication • Open data / open coding
Climate Science • Participatory integrated • Institutional redesign (e.g. IPCC)
assessment

9. Implications
• Some public concerns at least partly responded to (e.g.
inclusion)
• For other concerns responses are less evident (e.g. over the
purposes of emerging S&T and speed of innovation)
• Need for a more systemic perspective of the science
governance system
• Need to understand the missing link:
What mediates institutional responses and responsiveness to public
concerns about the governance of science and technology?

10. 1. Science governance is expert led - efforts to reflect public values remain
largely marginal as public concerns don't resonate
Expert led model of
governance
More appetite for
engaging public
around wider
strategic goals for
research
Less appetite to
involve public directly
in funding decisions
Key people: Decision making culture led
from top.
CEOs, Ministers, Governing
Support for dialogue needed
Boards, Senior Staff, The
Executive/Senior Civil from key people to be
Servants successful

11. 2. The big strategic issue is the economy. This can create opportunities and threats for new
science governance models such as dialogue.
Less cash for
research and
administration
Retrenchment It’s the Increased focus
and loss of
governance economy, on
collaboration
capacity
stupid
Maximise
impact of
activities and
investments

12. 3. Science organisations feel accountable to their peers, funders and business. The public
are a lower level accountability.
Legal and
administrative
Higher level
accountability Constituency – e.g
other scientists
Customers
e.g. business
Societal accountability was
seen as the lowest priority
Public and generally not
embedded in routine
Lower level structures and practices of
accountability organisations.

13. 4. Public dialogue exercises have had greater impact in organisations where there is
senior support and structures to integrate dialogue in policy.
Public engagement had more impact where:
Engagement
led by policy
Decentralised rather than
rather than comms
hierarchical
Managers structure
willing to take
risks
Supportive
CEO Organisational cultures play a key part in the relationship between
engagement and decision making. Science based organisations
expressed conflicting cultures: being at once innovative, creative
and open; as well as inward looking, elitist and over centralised.

14. Figure 1: Relative openness of organisations
5. Being open and transparent doesn't necessarily mean organisations account for public
views in decision-making
Openness and transparency are necessary but not sufficient conditions for good governance.
Government
Academies/
departments;
Businesses Membership Regulators
research
organisations
funders
Increasing openness and transparency

15. 5 Implications
Focus science
Focus on policy debate Rebrand SIS
on social Make better
governance in Lead from committees
outcomes use of
the public policy and look for
rather than collaboration
interest rather directorates opportunities
risks and and existing
than public rather than to align them
benefits of a structures for
engagement comms to internal
technology engagement
interests

16. Science, governance and the impact
of public dialogue
SCIENCE COMMUNICATION CONFERENCE 2012
14 & 15 May 2012, Kings Place, London
Roland Jackson, British Science Association and
Sciencewise

17. Reflections: what is the public interest?
Generalising from the synthetic biology public dialogue:
• What is the purpose?
• Why do you want to do it?
• What are you going to gain from it?
• What else is it going to do?
• How do you know you are right?

18. Reflections: levels of engagement
Recognise the different contexts in which the „public interest‟ is
relevant:
• Funder (e.g. BIS, BBSRC)
• Institution (e.g. Rothamsted)
• Research Group
• Researcher

19. Over to you…
1. To what extent do these findings make sense
to you?
2. How can science organisations better
account for public concerns about the
governance of science?
3. What does this mean for you in your own
role?