Public understanding of science vs' public participation in science: Competing or complementing appr

1
Public understanding of science vs. public
participation in science Competing or
complementing approaches?

• Dr. Urs Dahinden, Department of Communication,
  University of Zurich, Switzerland
• Presentation at th 6th International Conference
  on Public Communication of Science and Technology
• February 1 - 3, 2001, CERN, Geneva, Switzerland

2
Overview

• The problem increasing distance between science
  and society
• Two competing views on the problem
• 1) Deficit model Lack of public understanding
• 2) Democracy model Lack of public participation
• Empirical case study Energy policy
• Conclusions

3
The problem

• Science and Society increasing distance and
  alienation
• Paradox Science is more and more influential,
  but decreasingly accepted
• Case studies
• Nuclear Power
• Biotechnology
• BSE (Mad Cow Disease)

4
View 1 Deficit model Lack of public
understanding

• Problem analysis
• Velocity and complexity of modern science is too
  much for non-experts
• Cultural lag (Osgood) Scientific and technical
  developments are so fast that culture is laging
  behind
• Remedy
• Promoting public understanding (knowledge) of
  science by Science Public Relations (e.g.
  Science Museums, Science Events, Science
  Journalism etc.)

5
View 2 Democracy modelLack of public
participation

• Problem analysis
• Science is not misunderstood, but distrusted
• Science as a powerful, but not neutral
  institution (speaking truth to power) with vested
  interests (due to sponsoring by government and
  industry)
• Remedy
• Less technocracy, more democracy (more
  transparency)
• Developing procedures of public participation in
  science

6
Deliberative procedures of public participation

• Consensus Conferences
• Participatory Technology Assessment
• Citizen Juries (planing cells)
• Integrated Assessment Focus Groups
• Deliberative polls

7
Common features of these public participation
procedures

• involvement of normal citizens
• access to expertise
• discussion, deliberation
• policy recommendation
• function
• synthesis of societal values with scientific
  knowledge
• microcosmos of social learning
• link to the public debate necessary

8
Phases in a public participation project
1. Initiation
Ongoing Social Debate
7. Impact
2. Definition
6. Follow-Up
5. Realisation
3. Design
4.Prepa-rationon
9
Developmental Stages in Risk Communication

• 1. All we have to do is to get the number
  right.2. All we have to do is tell them the
  number3. All we have to do is explain them what
  we mean by the numbers4. All we have to do is
  to show them that they've accepted similar risks
  in the past5. All we have to do is show them
  that it's a good deal for them6. All we have to
  do is to treat them nice7. All we have to do is
  to make them partners8. All of the
  aboveSource Fischhoff, B. (1995) Risk
  Perception and Communication Unplugged Twenty
  Years of Process. In Risk Analysis 15, 2 p. 138

10
Empirical Data Focus groups on energy policy

• 24 Focus groups (10 German, 6 French, 8 Italian
  in the respective regions of Switzerland)
• 140 persons
• Representative with regard to age and political
  orientation

11
Input 1 for focus groups energy consumption
goals

• 121 Business-as-usual
• 95 Stabilisation
• 33 Substantial reduction
•  
• (100 actual energy level)

12
Input 2 for focus groups Means in energy
policy

• Information
• Permanent education, moral suasion
• Regulation
• Energy consumption standards for engines
• Energy quotas for individuals
• Economic Instruments
• CO2-tax Moderate price increases for fossil
  energy
• Energy tax Substantial price increases on all
  non-renewable energy sources
• Energy permits Special stock exchange for energy
  permits

13
Structure of discussion, data

• Welcome, Questionaire 1
• Discussion about goals in energ policy,
  including collage
• Discussion about means in energy policy
• Questionaire 2
• Consensus development
• Questionaire 3, end of discussion
• Data Quantitative Individual attitudes (t1,
  2), collective decisions (t3)

14
Findings Rationality of citizen recommendations

• Rationality indicator
• consistency between energy consumption goals and
  means
• Finding Increasing rationality of the citizen
  recommendations

15
Conclusions (1)

• Public understanding and public participation
  Complements, rather than competitors
• Part 1 Why the deficit model needs the
  democratic model
• Increasing public understanding requires the
  subjective feeling of being actively involved (as
  a citizen or as a consumer)
• Learning is most intense in phases of conflict
  (knowledge gap model)

16
Conclusions (2)

• Part 2 Why the democratic model needs the
  deficit model
• Promoting the understanding of science A
  necessary, but not sufficient element of all
  public participation procedures
• Public participation a way of providing equal
  access to scientific expertise

17
Conclusion (3)

• Paradise is lost No way back to the times of
  unquestioned, blind trust in science
• Public participation procedures
• promising, but not yet well understood for
  developing a new new role for science
• Science not anymore the neutral and powerful
  judge but a partner in the dialogue
• Further research needed
• Public participation procedures (how to do it)
• Evaluation (requirements and impacts)
• Theoretical reflection in the social and natural
  sciences New models of the science-society
  interaction