Geoscience Reference
In-Depth Information
or the lives of their many peers. They aim to foster dialogue, not token 'par-
ticipation'. The presumption is that lay-scientist discourse (in the interactive
verb sense) may alter the eventual focus and content of scientific discourse
(in the noun sense). This is why a lot of thought goes into the procedural
details, e.g. by what criteria will citizens be selected for a consensus confer-
ence? This is all to the good. It takes citizens' right of speech seriously, rather
than, in Amaryta Sen's (1999: 288) sharp words, treating them 'as well-fed,
well-clothed and well-entertained vassals' on whose behalf others make the
important decisions. The value of scientific expertise is not negated here,
but citizen involvement in science upstream, and sometimes mid-stream,
serves to better anchor it in the considered views and (when appropriate)
However, for all its utility, this kind of involvement tends to be rather
piecemeal. It usually takes an issue-by-issue form - an example being the
the
overarching
patterns of scientific inquiry prevalent at any one time are
not subject to public discussion. The absence of such macro-level discus-
sion reflects a failure to appreciate the full implications of the fact that
'science both governs and is governed without being formally constituted
fairly obvious reasons. First, in aggregate, professional scientists produce
representations of nature (and other things) whose sheer size vastly eclipses
that contributed by citizen scientists. These representations circulate far and
wide, permeating society via not just the news media but a whole range of
other mobile and fixed media too. Second, in those countries where sci-
entists comprise a sizeable workforce, the annual costs of research (wages,
buildings, equipment, etc.) extend into billions of dollars/euro/yen. Impor-
tantly, taxpayers cover a significant percentage of these costs. Third, at any
one time, several particular areas of science command the lion's share of
science funding, leaving other areas relatively under-funded. This 'Big Sci-
ence' imposes opportunity costs on society as a whole: what alternative
topics are not researched or questions not asked because so much resource is
going into a few high-profile areas (like cancer research)? Fourth, and relat-
edly, these areas tend be dominated (and championed) by only a minority
of the wider epistemic community of scientists (for instance, those based
in 'elite' research universities or government research laboratories). Fifth, a
lot of modern science has applications designed to satisfy the commercial
motives of private companies. We saw this in
Chapter 5
in the discussion
of patents on biotechnological 'inventions'. This raises questions of how far
the commercial and public interests can coincide.
For these five reasons, modern societies would arguably benefit from insti-
tutionalised opportunities to take stock of, and possibly alter significantly,
the diet of scientific knowledge that makes it on to their metaphorical
plates. The flip side of this entails public reflection on what (1) scientific
