John Beddington spells out his goals for public engagement

A key part of my role as the government’s Chief Scientific Adviser is to improve the quality and use of science and technology across government. It’s also important for us to be increasing public confidence in how the government uses science – this is central to the government’s new vision for science and society and the subject of a current consultation (1). But building confidence won’t just happen through making better use of science internally in government. We need a sustained dialogue and a mature relationship between science, the public and policy makers.

Tools for the public

Science can help us to overcome, or at least mitigate, many of the economic, societal and environmental challenges we increasingly face as a nation and as a planet. It will not, however, give us any easy answers. There are tough choices ahead about the future of energy and food, to name but two of our greatest challenges.

We must give the public the tools to engage in an effective and meaningful way with scientific developments, so that their choices are well-informed. These tools include the knowledge and understanding of what science can and can’t do.

Engagement for understanding

Public engagement and dialogue are key ways to increase understanding and knowledge and spark informed debates. The public wants to know what researchers are doing, and why they’re doing it. This was also clear from the results of the Public Attitudes to Science 2008 (2) survey, published by RCUK and DIUS. The public also needs to be confident that scientists are professional, ethical and objective. My predecessor, Sir David King, made an important contribution there through publishing a Universal Ethical Code for Scientists: Rigour, Respect and Responsibility (3).

We are learning all the time how to do public engagement better. Recently, our engagement on stem cells and nanotechnology has put us well ahead of the game internationally. Through dialogue on nanotechnology, we identified the public’s wish to understand the government’s agreed position on the development of these technologies, and responded to it with a joint ministerial statement (4).

The importance of evidence

Many current issues such as nuclear power generate strong reactions, and tend to polarise opinion. Scientific and technology issues are frequently complex and — as often in life — there can be no objection to people arriving at different judgements, even based on the same information. Sometimes this will reflect people’s values, or their concerns about wider societal issues. However, in these areas it is especially important to ensure that all sides of the debate do not lose sight of the scientific evidence.

Deep understanding of issues usually takes time to achieve. To be effective, public engagement therefore usually needs to be long term and responsive, and fit into citizens’ own ethical and cultural frameworks. Where public engagement is inadequate, there is a risk that ill-informed prejudice rather than facts will dominate, and that worthwhile scientific and technological developments will be lost.

Foresight

Our Foresight reports often stimulate public debate – for example there was substantial media interest in Tackling Obesities, published in October 2007. Foresight involves a rigorous science-based exploration of potential futures, to inform an analysis of long-term opportunities and possible challenges facing the government and the nation. I’m particularly pleased that one of our new Foresight projects will be on food security.

In November 2008, Foresight will begin a project on future global food systems, expected to be published in July 2010. It will take a multi-disciplinary approach, and an international perspective, to explore how food production — including fishing and aquaculture — might evolve in a world adapting to and mitigating climate change.

This project has an obvious synergy with our Land Use Futures project, which was announced in April 2008, as well as with the projects on Sustainable Energy Management in the Built Environment. A further project on Mental Capital and Wellbeing will be published this autumn.

Personal goal

I personally want to see a society in which everyone is able to make informed judgements about the issues that we face; where the public is confident that the government’s eventual decisions are also informed by scientific evidence; and where new developments are appraised with regard to the scientific evidence alongside their economic, cultural and ethical implications.

Reference

1. http://interactive.dius.gov.uk/
scienceandsociety/site/

2. RCUK (2008) Public Attitudes to Science 2008, London: RCUK

3. http://www.berr.gov.uk/files/
file41318.pdf

4. www.dius.gov.uk/policy/
documents/statement-nanotechnologies.pdf

Professor John Beddington is the government’s Chief 
Scientific Adviser and Head 
of the Government Office for
Science