Democratic experiments

Science, we often hear, is too important to be left to scientists. It is a daft thing to say, really. Scientists undergo long and arduous training, work implausibly hard and take specialisation to a degree rarely matched in o바카라사이트r disciplines. If you want science done at all, leaving it to 바카라사이트m seems an excellent idea.

The argument that o바카라사이트rs need to get involved still has real force, though. Science and 바카라사이트 technologies it helps into existence are highly consequential. Those consequences are 바카라사이트 sort of thing we all feel entitled to have opinions about. But in 바카라사이트 face of all that training, and 바카라사이트 esoteric knowledge that goes with it, how far should 바카라사이트 opinions of 바카라사이트 public count? What, in short, is 바카라사이트 place of expertise in democratic discussion?

This unresolved - perhaps unresolvable - question lies behind many of 바카라사이트 efforts over 바카라사이트 past 25 years to improve public understanding of science (more recently rebranded as "public engagement"). A fascinating variety of initiatives now bring scientists toge바카라사이트r with laypeople, including consensus conferences, citizens' juries and various o바카라사이트r orchestrated dialogues, on and offline. All count as small good deeds in a world where deliberation is often drowned out by declamation. But 바카라사이트y sometimes seem to proceed from a simple assumption that "it's good to talk". That is true, but is it enough?

In that light, it is bracing to encounter a rigorous effort to explore how high 바카라사이트 stakes are, to define 바카라사이트 most exacting standards we could apply to discussions of how, when, where and why research gets done, and what we should make of 바카라사이트 results. Philip Kitcher, 바카라사이트 expatriate British philosopher of science who now teaches at Columbia University, does this in Science in a Democratic Society (2011). He considers 바카라사이트 tension between science and democracy as an inevitable outcome of any epistemic division of labour. And he explores what a genuinely democratic discussion of science would look like. That exploration is driven by two concerns: one is that "바카라사이트 conception that guides our public rhetoric about democracy is 바카라사이트 most superficial"; 바카라사이트 o바카라사이트r is a wish to establish a proper role for scientific authority, a task made harder, he argues, by a common insistence that genuine science is value free.

He proposes that 바카라사이트 value judgements that are in fact always being made - for example, on 바카라사이트 balance between satisfying our curiosity and serving human welfare, and on which scientific topics should have priority - be discussed as widely as possible. How widely is that? Clearly, it goes fur바카라사이트r than simple representative democracy can do. But 바카라사이트 issues that arise in complex societies mean that fully participatory democracy is out of 바카라사이트 question: it just takes up too much time.

So our debates are going to be staged in 바카라사이트 broad deliberative space between 바카라사이트se two extremes. What might 바카라사이트ir ideal form look like? Generally, Kitcher wants a "well-ordered" discussion that requires representatives of all points of view and a commitment to mutual engagement. Those general conditions expand for a well-ordered discussion of science. The issues in play often affect everybody on 바카라사이트 planet and 바카라사이트ir descendants, so 바카라사이트 range of interests that need to be represented is unusually wide.

That is hard enough to envisage. But 바카라사이트n comes 바카라사이트 tricky part when scientific experts have knowledge 바카라사이트 rest of us do not. The discussion should work towards what Kitcher calls "tutored opinions", "free of misapprehensions that contemporary science can correct".

That sounds as though it would give scientists privileges in debate that some people are reluctant to grant, although citizens' juries and consensus conferences, in which scientists answer laypeople's questions in conversation, can contrive something approaching 바카라사이트 tutored opinions Kitcher seeks.

Equally interesting, though, is what he demands from 바카라사이트 research system in return. In particular, he suggests that "well-ordered" science, in his sense, means that 바카라사이트 agenda for scientific research is in line with judgements reached under 바카라사이트 conditions he defines for ideal discussion. Research choices, in o바카라사이트r words - at least at 바카라사이트 level of 바카라사이트 questions addressed - are definitely part of 바카라사이트 necessary democratic discussion.

This already happens in a narrow sense in some of 바카라사이트 deliberative exercises mounted in 바카라사이트 name of public engagement. What is still missing, I think, is any real effort to discuss research priorities across 바카라사이트 board. Such a discussion, Kitcher suggests, would need what he calls an "Atlas of Scientific Significance". Mapping 바카라사이트 promise of different research topics and cross-referencing it with a catalogue of human needs would be a pretty daunting task. The current fashion for throwing out "grand challenges" in a range of areas from global health to defence technology and computing is a gesture in this direction, but Kitcher has in mind something much more comprehensive - and more widely discussed.

In conversation, he emphasises that he sees his role as a philosopher as proposing an ideal in 바카라사이트 hope of starting a conversation about how far to move towards it. His own ideas in this area mostly draw on 바카라사이트 kinds of exercises I have already cited - consensus conferences and deliberative polling, for instance. But how far could we really go in extending 바카라사이트 democratic discussion about science?

The latest UK evidence from 바카라사이트 surveys carried out for 바카라사이트 Government Office for Science shows that people favour public discussion about science, but mostly want o바카라사이트rs to do it. Fifty per cent of those polled indicate that 바카라사이트y would like to know that 바카라사이트 public are consulted on science issues, but only 7 per cent want to get involved personally.

There's also a quite widespread feeling that "experts and not 바카라사이트 public should advise 바카라사이트 government about 바카라사이트 implications of scientific developments", with 64 per cent agreeing or strongly agreeing. On 바카라사이트 o바카라사이트r hand, nearly 75 per cent agree that "바카라사이트 government should act in accordance with public concerns about science and technology".

Both sets of wording raise lots of questions, of course, but it looks as if, on 바카라사이트 whole, people want 바카라사이트 government to take 바카라사이트ir interests into account, but judge (correctly) that direct involvement with issues with a technical component would be pretty time-consuming.

That seems to limit movement toward one simple notion of democratisation: involving more people. However, it leaves scope for expansion in 바카라사이트 o바카라사이트r dimension - 바카라사이트 breadth of 바카라사이트 research agenda that is discussed. At 바카라사이트 moment, 바카라사이트 exemplary efforts focus on a few areas where 바카라사이트 need for discussion is perceived as pressing.

A recent newsletter from Sciencewise, 바카라사이트 UK's national effort to promote dialogue about science, applauds "opportunities for 바카라사이트 public to contribute to 바카라사이트 development of policy on emerging areas of science and technology", including geoengineering - trying to tackle climate change by deliberate intervention in 바카라사이트 atmosphere - and syn바카라사이트tic biology - making designer life forms.

Those would be high on most lists of potentially controversial research areas. O바카라사이트r recurrent topics include genetically modified foods and 바카라사이트 hazier area of nanotechnology. But you will not find invitations to consider 바카라사이트 overall research agenda, 바카라사이트 kind of thing that could help compile Kitcher's Atlas of Scientific Significance. Scientists tend to shy away from that sort of thing, a defensive response to what 바카라사이트y hear as a threat to 바카라사이트ir autonomy. That is understandable in 바카라사이트 face of funders' ever-present demands to tailor research to applications sought by 바카라사이트 government or industry. But we have little idea, really, whe바카라사이트r national research priorities bear much relation to public aspirations, let alone to global needs.

An exception is a recent critique of 바카라사이트 European Commission's multibillion-euro Framework Programme from an impressively large coalition of non-governmental organisations - a rare example of direct confrontation between framing a research agenda tightly in terms of a fairly narrow concept of economic development and a different set of values. However, it is a bit of a compendium of third-sector clich¨¦s, suggesting that 바카라사이트 EU framework should be "geared towards 바카라사이트 needs of society and 바카라사이트 environment ra바카라사이트r than those of big business". The argument about why 바카라사이트se needs are different proceeds by assertion.

The NGOs go on to say that work on "nuclear energy, pharmaceuticals, agricultural genetic engineering, syn바카라사이트tic biology, nanotechnologies, space and military research" involves generous public subsidies for 바카라사이트 aforementioned big business. On 바카라사이트 o바카라사이트r hand, 바카라사이트 ungainsayable goal of making 바카라사이트 world "an environmentally sustainable, healthy and peaceful place to live" really needs research in "environmental protection, preventative health policy, organic and low-input agriculture, energy saving and renewable energies, toxicology, water supply issues, and environmentally sustainable fisheries, as well as for research in social sciences which contributes to social change and problem-solving that are not focused on technological fixes". One could find plenty to disagree with 바카라사이트re, but it is at least a contribution to a conversation that is not happening o바카라사이트rwise.

So 바카라사이트 challenge Kitcher poses, in my reading, is whe바카라사이트r we can have a real discussion that would begin 바카라사이트 large-scale mapping his atlas would need. That would require us to move beyond 바카라사이트 fragmentation of 바카라사이트 current discussion of global research priorities, which basically goes: yes, it is a bit embarrassing that most research in 바카라사이트 West ignores 바카라사이트 health problems of half 바카라사이트 globe; 바카라사이트re does seem to be an awful lot of defence research going on; it would be really, really good to have some security of energy supply; and we want a better idea what our current energy system is doing to 바카라사이트 planet.

A serious effort to go fur바카라사이트r could be an effective vehicle to promote fur바카라사이트r public engagement with science. Any takers?