Scientific engagement and harvest
Is there an inherent conflict between public debate and free scientific inquiry? Patrick L. Taylor of Children's Hospital Boston and Harvard Medical School argues in this week's Commentary in Nature (450, 163-164; 2007) that earning public trust is essential to defending scientific freedoms. He writes:
"Public engagement in scientific research has gone viral. Today, public consultation is invoked for subjects as diverse as war veterans' responses to genomic research, responsible nanotechnology and the use of animal transplants in humans. It has also gone global, as demonstrated by the just-completed consultation on research using animal–human hybrid embryos by Britain's Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA), and the Singapore government's plan to consult on hybrid research and oocyte donation later this year. As groups of citizens mobilize and blog on science issues — from patenting to public health and drug development — it is time to reconsider the ground rules for public debates on science."
His proposals for what scientists should do:
First, when soliciting public engagement, we must be clear what the public is being asked to contribute.
Second, we ought to encourage the public to share in understanding the wonder of scientific developments.
Third, we need to respect and actively support the neutrality, credibility and independence of bodies of scientific expertise, particularly advisory committees and academic journals.
"Fourth, we must be continuously creative in public engagement. The whirlwind of scientific and biotechnological change must be met with complementary engagement, in which people's need to know and evaluate can be grounded in intelligent understanding of possible solutions to their concerns."
Please read this stimulating article in full at the Nature website.
In the same issue of the journal, you can also read the current Essay in the science and politics series, A Timely Harvest (Nature 450, 174; 2007), in which Pierre-Benoit Joly and Arie Rip opine that the public should be consulted on contentious research and development early enough for their opinions to influence the course of science and policy-making - using genetic modification of plants and nanotechnology as examples.
Comments
The Commentary ‘Rules of engagement’ successfully builds a case for the need of public engagement in scientific research. However, public consultation is also required for purely economic reasons.
This is all the more important given the inevitability of straitened economic circumstances to force changes in science funding (Nature 448, 839, 2007). Public involvement from the very beginning would help ensure that we correctly prioritize our needs.
A line of esearch can be very exciting, methodologically sound, and ethically right, and yet lacking in priority. A particle physics program, for example, may seem pressing to physicists but the need for research on an endemic disease may cause the public to favour a drug development programme instead.
Scientists understand the language of editors and reviewers more than they understand national economies. I believe editors are best placed to decide whether or not to publish a manuscript because they can visualize the merits, topicality, possible impact, and so on, of all the manuscripts submitted. This comparative assessment, beyond the scope of reviewers, acts as a key decision-making factor.
In the same vein, the public, not bound by priorities of specific government departments and scientific disciplines, is best placed to influence decision- and policy-making process in a neutral manner.
To sum up, public consultation is essential for realizing the integration of science in society.
Posted by: Abhay Sharma | November 20, 2007 01:44 PM