Where is the Trust?

The title for this week’s readings is “Democratizing Science and Technology.” Yet the first thing that caught my was how undemocratic these articles were. Here are the representing authors we read this week:

See-through Science:

• James Wilsdon: head of strategy at Demos
• Rebecca Willis: associate director of Green Alliance and cice-charif of UK’s Sustainable Development Commission

Taking European Knowledge Society Seriously

• Working group was comprised of scholars and participants from public interest and labor organization.

Trust and the transformation of energy systems

• Steve Rayner is an anthropologist by training and Oxford Professor at the Said Business School.

There seems to be two missing voices: those of the scientists and those of the laymen (yet all the articles address the concept of bringing science and the public together). As emphasized in See-though Science, “Different types of intelligence need to be viewed alongside each other” (Wilsdon and Willis, 56).  In short, the hierarchy of science above the public needs to be dismantled. Moreover, this hierarchical belief that science can lead to the ultimate truth marginalizes legitimate democratic concerns (Felt and Wynne, 11). Yet, these pieces include neither voice! In fact, the audience of See-though Science was listed as interested companies in general scientists and academics in particular—including the related institutions, councils, policy-makers, businesses, and NGOs (Wilsdon and Willis, 23). Not the public?

I do agree though that risk assessment is too narrow a framework. In this framework, certain question just cannot be asked including those regarding ownership, benefits, and goals (Wilsdon and Willis, 23). Yet, what should this new framework be?

All authors quickly debunked the initial thought that the public feared science because of the associated risk that comes with innovation (Felt and Wynne, 9). The working group stated this wasn’t the case and that the public actually practices a form of selective disaffection. It is not just about probabilities, but also about the unknown and neglected (Felt and Wynne, 11).

Another thought was that there was a lack of trust towards science. Yet, this perceived fall in trust was just a consequence of the post-WWII high when science was viewed as winning the war (Rayer, 5). Neither was the “deficit model” accurate: the lack or failure of communication wasn’t the problem (Rayner, 6)

Though the authors did not agree to a single set of justifications behind the current misgivings between the public and science, they did agree somewhat on how to deal with it. Two of my favorite being: (1 the promotion of civic ‘knowledge-abilities’ needed (Felt and Wynne, 10 and, (2) as stated by Wilsdon and Willis, creativity is needed with both formal and informal methods included (Wilsdon and Willis, 56). Will these things help? They will. Are they sufficient? Not in the least. Those working on such issues need to be self-refelexive and look around. How can a group talk about the relationship between science and the public without scientists or the public? How can the hierarchy be dismantled if other hierarchies are built alongside of it?