In a relatively tight spending review, the Chancellor allocated significant new resources to science because of his belief in its fundamental role in securing future national prosperity. While this money is very welcome, science policy would still benefit from a strong dose of social democracy.
As the controversies over GM crops, stem cells and vivisection suggest, science is a big issue for the rest of us, too. The worry for government is that public unease will slow science down and act, as this summer’s government announcement of its science and innovation framework puts it, as a ‘brake on social and economic development’.
But all the evidence shows the public are upbeat about science. Our confidence has been severely shaken, not in science and technology as such, but in the way they are governed. To reassure us, the government needs to be more confident of its own role in research and innovation. In promoting the public interest, and in being seen to do so, it faces two immediate challenges.
The social challenge is to maintain a strong commitment to science and technology while ensuring the benefits are clearly shared by all. This government has put investment in UK scientific excellence at the forefront of its drive to enhance national economic performance. But as their framework argues, science policy could also help to achieve another government priority – closing regional disparities in prosperity. They should be applauded for tackling regional inequality. It is unacceptable that life chances, life expectancy and economic opportunities should vary as starkly as they do.
However, there remains a concentration of scientific excellence within the Oxbridge-London ‘golden triangle’. It cannot continue if the government is to meet its target to reduce regional inequality. One solution would be to ‘top slice’ the science budget, dedicating a modest amount to research and innovation in lagging regions.
The democratic challenge facing government is to make science and technology more accountable. We all have a stake in science, as taxpayers and consumers. Yet at the moment only a few of us shape research priorities or manage innovation and most decisions are made in private.
The government is recognising this. Its framework charts its own epiphany, spurning the ‘deficit model’, which attributed public concerns to an ignorance of science, in favour of ‘public engagement’.
The government aims to involve us “‘upstream’” in the scientific and technological development process, and not “downstream” where technologies are waiting to be exploited’.
Yet the government faces a conundrum. How can we all participate, except superficially? Only a small minority of people could ever take part in tried and tested participation processes like citizens’ juries and consensus conferences. That the rest of us only have the media, where debates about science have often been polarised, causes the government concern.
Actually, there is no need to worry. The government is uneasy because it wants to involve us for the wrong reason. In its framework, the government presents public involvement as a way to prevent public concerns from hindering scientific and economic progress. The possibility that citizens might contribute to science and might advance progress is not entertained.
So, the task is not to involve us directly so we feel we are being listened to. It is to gain social intelligence through public engagement on a smaller scale, to take that input seriously, and then to do science differently as a result. To meet the democratic challenge, engagement must be about addressing public concerns, not about managing them. Public engagement must be integrated with the government’s flagship initiatives on research and innovation, not just slotted on the side.
Science policy is central to our nation’s future prosperity. It is also an area of acute public interest, where society is looking to the state to take a lead. This government’s commitment to science is welcome, but more needs to be done. Like science itself, science policy provides an opportunity to transform society. The time is right for the government to inject a dose of social democracy.