Misusing the dialogue model—how policy makers construct publics

This section draws mainly from government reports and policy documents to provide evidence for the ways in which policy makers construct publics for science.

In the UK, government reports mainly propose a dialogue model for interacting with publics on scientific issues. The British House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology (2000) suggested a key role for communication as a way of reducing tensions between science and society by moving away from a deficit approach towards a model that promotes greater dialogue and consultation. In Ireland, though

government reports usually define science in terms of its beneficial economic impacts only, the 1999 Technology Foresight Ireland Report included among its

recommendations a proposal for a ‘national conversation on biotechnology’ and

advocated a communications strategy in biotechnology that uses a partnership approach with on-going, transparent and open dialogue.

The misuse of the dialogue model has been criticised (Papadakis, 1993, p. 103) in that dialogue—which can take place behind closed doors—if it has no practical

consequences, simply leads to programmatic statements. Rowe and Frewer (2000) note the inequality of sides in any dialogue between institutions and publics. The lay side of the conversation does not have access to the resources that would enable them to make good decisions. Public hearings come in for particular criticism. It has been suggested that their main aim is often to co-opt public support and to change decisions rather than to seek informed consent and expand democratic choice (e.g., Nelkin and Pollak 1979). Some empirical evidence suggests that they have little influence on citizen behaviour or policy choices (Cole and Caputo 1984).

Governments often consider dialogue a panacea in dealing with the publics’ relations with science. It can provide a prompt (and cheap) solution for the debate on, for example, genetic manipulation and food safety (issues identified in more expensive Eurobarometer (2001) polls). They have been seen as being quick, cheap, and simply administered means of satisfying any legal requirement for public participation (Smith 1983), and seen as giving the appearance of community involvement (Fiorino 1990).

Indeed, public hearings often seem designed to contain and control participation (Middendorf and Busch 1997) by allowing only limited choices on narrow, short-term questions at a late stage of the policy process (e.g., as noted by the environmental lawyer Ellison Folk 1991 in his account of dioxin contamination in wells near the Koppers and Louisiana Pacific wood treatment facilities in Oroville, California.).

Nelkin and Pollack (1979) have proposed that public participation models which are dominated by elite expert knowledge and which restrict public input to an advisory rather than a decision-making role amount to no more than a ‘welfare model’ of participation. Wynne (1982) has suggested that many of the public dialogue hearings are more of a ritual than a participatory mechanism. Davison, Barnes and Schibeci (1997) said that such so-called dialogues may even be said to displace active forms of public debate. As Benjamin Barber (1981 p. 181) wrote: “He who controls the

agenda—if only its wording—controls the outcome.” Similarly, American political scientist William Riker writes, in his introduction to his book Agenda Formation:

“Agendas foreshadow outcomes: the shape of an agenda influences the choices made from it” (Riker, 1993, p. 1). The political scientist Schattschneider, in discussing his theory of conflict displacement, an agenda-based approach to studying democratic processes, asserts: “The definition of the alternatives is the supreme instrument of power; the antagonists can rarely agree on what the issues are because power is

involved in the definition” (Schattschneider, 1960, p. 68).

Burns et al. (2003) notes that scientists may have scientific facts at their disposal, whereas members of the public have local or so-called lay knowledge of the problems.

Both kinds of knowledge need to be exchanged for true dialogue to happen. The risk run by lay participants is that this legitimation can be tokenised so that the process becomes little more than a device to encourage public acceptance of controversial decisions (Nelkin and Pollack, 1979). However, these exchanges are happening with increasingly confident publics. As Helga Nowotny, president of the European Research Council, explains, the better-educated-than-ever population that inhabits the modern

“agora” is also highly articulate. In the liberal Western democracies, experience of participation has taught many citizens how to express their views and articulate their demands Nowotny (2003).

Things are changing. Government thinking in the UK has developed to the point that the authors of the Science and Trust Report (2010, p. 6), were clear and unanimous in their agreement that they didn’t want publics to blindly and uncritically accept what scientists tell them; rather: “we want to see all actors and influencers working together to enable a greater degree of critical reasoning and discussion, and better

communication of scientific processes”. However, Ireland is slower in adopting this thinking, and Padraig Murphy, in his research into public engagement with

nanotechnology, has concluded that: “the emerging, underlying discourses of public engagement, however, have not yet taken root in Ireland” (Murphy, 2010, p. 14).

2.11 Helping to increase public support and

understanding—how policy makers construct media

Media is seen by policy-makers as one of the key elements in engaging people (especially young people) with science. For most citizens, knowledge about science comes largely through mass media, not through scientific publications or direct involvement in science. As Nelkin stated in her book Selling Science, the public

understands science “less through direct experience or past education than through the filter of journalistic language and imagery” (Nelkin 1995). In an Irish context, Trⁱench (2007, p. 129) notes that government and other social interests with a stake in science often look to the mass media (as well as to the educational system and direct

promotional initiatives) to help develop awareness of science in the general population, going as far as funding media such as the science television programmes The

Investigators and The Science Squad. The 1995 Report of the Science, Technology and Innovation Advisory Council (Tierney Report), was critical of Irish media, observing that they had a low level of interest and expertise in covering science. It recommended

that a significant cultural shift in attitudes be brought about to improve communication between the scientific community, the media and the public, while the 1996 White Paper on Science technology and Innovation noted “the weak representation of STI issues in public affairs” (Government of Ireland, 1996).

Specific areas of science would also benefit from public awareness through the media.

In the Eurobarometer Survey (2007), when respondents were asked what news related issues they were interested in, 19% mentioned scientific research (this compares to an EU average of 31%). To put this in context, 54% of Irish respondents mentioned sport and 42% mentioned entertainment and celebrities. The areas of scientific research which are of most interest to Irish people are—again according to the Eurobarometer 2007 survey—medicine, cited by 45% of respondents as a field of scientific research they are interested in, and the environment, cited by 42%. Government policy

regarding public engagement with scientific research in medicine is outlined in the Advisory Council for Science, Technology and Innovation’s 2006 report Towards Better Health: Achieving a Step Change in Health Research in Ireland which recommends raising awareness of the value of scientific research into innovative products and therapies. With regards to the environment, the 2007 White Paper from the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources discusses the need for

commentary and analysis on energy matters in the media.

The 2007 Eurobarometer survey also investigated which media sources the respondents trusted the most for obtaining information on scientific research. Irish respondents overwhelmingly (70%) cited television as their most trusted source. As the Irish respondents trust television more than other media, it is not surprising that they prefer traditional television channels to provide them with information on scientific research (51%), while 31% cite thematic television channels and 27% cited radio (the figure for radio is particularly interesting as it is quite a bit higher than the EU average of 16%). In the UK, respondents to the Public Attitudes to Science survey carried out in 2011 responded that they heard or read about new scientific research findings most often on television (54%), and print media (33%), followed by internet excluding blogs (19%), very few (2%) use science blogs specifically as one of their most regular sources (Ipsos MORI / Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, 2011). In workshops carried out as part of the same survey, participants said that they trusted television more than newspapers for providing science information, “mainly because they felt they could see the evidence for themselves on the screen” (p. 40), and were ambivalent about information from the internet, as: “They thought the internet had many conflicting opinions on the same issues, so it was more difficult to know what to believe”. In the US, a study by Paul Brewer and Barbara Lee at the University of Wisconsin, which gauged audience perceptions of the trustworthiness of sources of

scientific information about the environment, respondents rated television programmes or channels about science such as Nova and the Discovery Channel as the most trustworthy sources (compared to university scientists, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, environmental organisations such as the Sierra Club and the Environmental Defense Fund, the local daily newspaper, science magazines like Popular Science and Scientific American, and science websites and blogs like Discover.com and ScienceDaily.com), with 47% saying that they trusted science television either a great deal or a good deal. Among the sources studied, the news media were the least trusted sources of scientific information about the environment:

only 14% trusted television news a great deal or a good deal, and the same percentage trusted the local daily newspaper.

The Special Eurobarometer report (2007) on scientific research in the media proposes the following role for media:

The media can play a crucial role as an interface in the science domain, helping to increase public support and understanding regarding the need to create a knowledge-based society. In addition, it could contribute to encouraging investments in research and justifying public funding. By attracting the attention of the young towards science a solid basis can be created for next generation of scientists which is essential for the lasting competitiveness of the EU.

(Eurobarometer, 2007, page 2)