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.