Parliament could have something to learn from the science public engagement community, according to Andrew Miller MP.  Miller, who chairs the House of Commons Select Committee on Science & Technology, thinks that Parliament’s ability to engage the public with science is ‘very, very challenging’. `The scientific community took earlier strides than Parliament did to engage the public,’ he told People & Science, adding, ‘There have been some very positive changes in the recent past.’

A three-way conversation?

Miller’s comments come after ScienceWise published a review of past public engagement on genetic modification (GM). ScienceWise manager Diane Warburton, who contributed to the report, told People & Science:`There can be quite entrenched views on GM, which makes it a very interesting and very political issue. What ScienceWise has always tried to do is to put the public into that conversation as well, so that it’s a three-way conversation between scientists, the public and whoever’s making the decision.’ 

Engaging in democracy

Parliament has been seeking to improve the way it engages the public with the political process. It held its first `Parliament Week’ in October with a programme of activities and events around the UK to build greater engagement with parliamentary democracy.

The Hansard Society recently looked at how public engagement could be improved, specifically with three focus groups: with first-time voters, with parliamentary officials, and with MPs and peers.  Beccy Allen, one of the co-authors of the society’s Parliament 20:20 report, summarised their findings. `The first-time voters wanted Parliament or MPs to come out to them as well as using methods… such as TV, social media and YouTube... They wanted to get a real sense of who the politicians were as people,’ she said.

Political balance

The officials and parliamentarians were less focused on two-way engagement than in putting out information for the public. Allen explained, `One official said, “Everything is political here.  It’s not straightforward.  Information is a tool for politicians to use against each other.” Parliament sees its role very differently from MPs. [Officials have to be careful to provide] balanced information.’

Miller sees some scope for hope: `A few months back I went to a really, really good Royal Society of Chemistry lecture that was aimed at the public.  Could Parliament do something like that on an apolitical basis and have public debates that put the work of Parliament into context?’ he pondered, adding, `Parliament does [already] do that but only on a very small scale.’