Comments on: Getting the information needed at the right place and at the right time: from scientists to policy makers and back again

By: Jones

Jones — Fri, 05 Oct 2007 02:37:53 +0000

I am intrigued by the question of citizens’ involvement in the science-to-policy process. I too believe that it is a necessary requisite for the entire process to work effectively and democratically. And the question has been raised: how do citizens become educated? For the majority, I would argue, education comes in the form of mass, popular media. Find out what stations are the most watched, sit down and force yourself to watch as well. How many references to climate change do you see? And if you do see a reference, say during a Toyota Hybrid commercial, are you told about the number of SUVs Toyota sells for every Hybrid? Who’s agenda are we mentally absorbing whenever we ingest this media?
The tools available to educate the majority of citizens are co-opted by parties uninterested, or unwilling to invest time and money into teaching the populous things that are (most often) not in the investor’s political or corporate interests. Those wishing to educate the populous should take a page from corporate advertising. If it’s true that pushing ads in one’s face at all possible moments (from billboards, to posters on bus stops, to metro ads, to newspaper ads etc. etc.) will entice one to purchase and buy into (metaphorically and literally) what is being promoted, then the same must be done with information we want the public to know. During election time, especially in the States, advertisements are posted everywhere for political parties. The process works. For better or worse, people will listen to what you tell them.

By: crocus

crocus — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 17:59:25 +0000

I think this is a very important topic that we are exploring here â€“ the revolving door through which scientists, policymakers, and citizens can inform each other. Although it is not always the case, there are times when action stemming from small organizations (community greening, implementing alternatives to car use) could be scaled up or inform policy for larger areas. Since the projects have been tested at a small scale (through grass roots initiatives), there has been time to figure out what works and what doesnâ€t. Again, this is not to say that it works in all situations but it provides another avenue for progress to be made and for citizens to inform policy makers of what is needed.

By: merle

merle — Tue, 02 Oct 2007 23:09:02 +0000

Well said. In addition to informing the public to get them to pressure policy makers, citizens can also be a great source of information for policy makers and scientists. The relation needs not be unidirectional as I (implicitly) presented it. Against the current presumption that academic experts have the monopoly when it comes to “real” knowledge, citizens can be very resourceful when it comes to precise knowledge of their environment, its complexity and history. Not recognizing this possibility, I think, is wrongly presuming that local knowledge, practical know-how and traditional knowledge cannot benefit academicians and policy makers.

By: ellis

ellis — Tue, 02 Oct 2007 19:06:56 +0000

The idea of including citizens is an intriguing and important one. There is general acknowledgement that environmental policy requires robust dialogue and communication among scientists, policy-makers and citizens, but when it comes to the contribution of this last group, people seem uncertain how to proceed. What is the role for citizens? How should they be brought into the process? Is it simply a problem of levels of scientific literacy among citizens? Do scientists simply need to become better at communicating their ideas to a non-specialist audience? Or do we envisage citizen participation as significantly changing the nature of the dialogue? For example, what to do about radical differences between scientists and laypersons regarding perception of risk? One could argue that citizens simply need to become better educated and therefore better equipped to perceive, evaluate and compare risks – in other words, they need to be brought up to – or closer to – the level of scientists and well-informed policy-makers in this regard. But are we prepared to accept a different kind of contribution – for example, citizens proposing their own views on the issue of acceptable risks, their own frameworks for evaluating and comparing risks? In other words, what is the scope for citizen education of scientists and policy makers, on these and other issues?

By: parasite kid

parasite kid — Tue, 02 Oct 2007 14:13:15 +0000

I completely agree with the need for a third pole â€“ citizens – especially given that these policies made by few will have an impact on the lives of many. Not only will the involvement of citizen stakeholders help put pressure on the bureaucratic process to create or implement needed policies, it will also create a sense of ownership over those policies that are put into action. I for one do not appreciate being told what to do without understanding whyâ€¦

However, this highlights the need for an informed citizenry and consequently what I see as another role for these interpreters: intelligent interpretation to the media. While this may be increasing the red tape, I believe that it is unrealistic to expect scientists to push aside the pressures of publishing in highly technical journals to synthesize and summarize their work (a rather weighty task). Perhaps this is a role for government scientists if emphasis is placed on publishing for policy instead of in research journals?

By: Culture Kid

Culture Kid — Mon, 01 Oct 2007 15:16:28 +0000

I wonder specifically how Dr. Holmes envisioned the role of moderator in bridging the gap between policy and science. What kind of background would they have? How exactly would they moderate? It seems to me that this idea runs parallel to the problems with “buzz words” – it sounds nice, but what does it really mean? Incorporating another person, another idea, another necessary line of communication into an arena which is already packed too full of policy-makers and scientists and others seems a poor solution to a problem that seems (at least in part) caused by over-crowding and over-complicating. I cannot propose a better solution, but I disagree with this proposed one. Science and bureaucracy may already be polar opposites, but adding another dimension, another variable, does not promise to bring them closer together; I venture it would only increase the distance between them.