Joyce Tait forecasts the effects of upstream engagement

‘Upstream engagement’ has been proposed as a more democratic approach to decision making about scientific research and the development of innovative products. It was stimulated by the conflict that arose over GM crop development in Europe, the assumption being that, if it had been adopted, the conflicts about this technology in Europe could have been avoided (1). Research councils, government departments, organisations representing scientists, and also a range of public interest advocacy groups have all claimed to use it and there is a widespread assumption that it is a good thing.

There are indeed numerous areas where it is highly effective as a means of reaching consensus over contentious developments, but in the areas where it is being most strongly advocated, for example nanotechnology, human embryonic stem cells, synthetic biology, and life sciences in general, it is least likely to succeed in avoiding conflict and reducing a perceived democratic deficit.

Criteria for success

There is a successful history of early engagement with public and stakeholder groups as a means to achieve robust, fair and effective decisions, for example in local planning applications and in engagement of patient groups with regulators and pharmaceutical companies over the development of new drugs.

Success is associated with several criteria. The issue in question is well specified and known to participants; the people engaged are directly affected by the issue; the timescale of the likely impact is relatively short (up to a few years); discussion hinges around potentially conflicting interests among affected parties.

As a result of these interest¬based concerns, negotiation among affected parties is possible, based for example on the provision of new information not previously on the table or on offers of compensation for losses or benefits foregone. Planning gain whereby a developer provides an affected community with a compensatory asset, such as a community hall, is an example of this effect in action.

Less successful in life sciences

With upstream engagement in stem cells, nanotechnology, and so on, none of the above four criteria is likely to be relevant.

At the stage of funding basic science, the expectations of scientists will be stated but the actual outcomes will be unknown. In the early stages of development of scientific discoveries, where a proof of concept may be available, the actual outcome will still be uncertain and subject to dramatic revision as new opportunities or unexpected problems emerge. Given the need to ensure compliance with complex regulatory systems, most life science products spend ten to fifteen years in development.

Thus, at the point where upstream engagement begins, the nature of the eventual product after ten years or more will be hypothetical, as will its potential risks or benefits. The issues will be remote from the public’s everyday lives and it will be difficult for them to imagine themselves directly affected.

The engagement niche will most likely be filled by advocacy groups as public representatives – a role which provides such groups with an opportunity to frame any new technology (positively or negatively) in the minds of the press and the public. However, the relationship of any such framing with the eventual reality of the emergent technology will be tenuous. Also, today’s public needs and desires may be very different from those perceived in two years’ time, much less in ten to fifteen years.

Many advocacy groups willing to engage with life science¬related questions are likely to be motivated primarily by values and ideology, rather than by personal interests, as was evident in the GM crops debates. If this is the case, information is treated as propaganda, compensation as bribery and negotiation as betrayal.

Engagement or dialogue

Thus an approach which is claimed to mitigate conflict could be more likely to exacerbate it.

It is an excellent idea to engage in public dialogue about science at any point in the process from fundamental scientific discoveries to their application. However, the term ‘engagement’ implies a decision¬making role for those engaged, which is most likely to involve foreclosing on particular development areas.

The most robust and democratic approach to future life science developments will be to retain as open a science and innovation environment as possible for as long as possible, avoiding simplistic interpretations (from whatever source) of what is likely to be technologically possible or publicly desirable at some point in the distant future.

Reference

1. J. Tait (2001). More Faust than Frankenstein: the European Debate about Risk Regulation for Genetically Modified Crops. Journal of Risk Research, 4(2), 175¬189.

Professor Joyce Taitis 
Scientific Adviser atthe ESRC 
InnogenCentre, University of 
Edinburgh