Commission aims to put science back in the heart of society
Early this October, the European Commission published its second opinion on a European Research Area and the priorities for its next RTD Framework programme. The document laid particular emphasis on the 'need to put science back at the heart of society'. Once upon a time such a statement might have seemed preposterous. Science seemed unquestionable and the stereotype of a 'man in a white coat' symbolised knowledge, intelligence and wisdom. You could trust what he said, did and produced: until The Bomb. Enter pesticides, agent orange, global warming, BSE. The result? Distrust of science and new technologies. But now that most of the world lives in the technology age, or as many call it, the 'risk society', the public and policy makers find themselves increasingly needing to turn to science for answers and advice. This invariably causes difficulties, not least because scientific opinion rarely evolves as quickly as political crises and each new problem throws up a new set of questions. In recognition of this dilemma, the European Commission's Institute for Prospective Technological Studies (IPTS), which is part of the Joint Research Centre, hosted a conference on 'science and governance' in Brussels recently. The event drew more than 450 stakeholders including scientists, policy makers, journalists, academics and teachers from the EU and around the world and as far afield as China. Speaking at a press conference during the event, Research Commissioner Philippe Busquin underlined his support of the ongoing discussions. He is keenly aware that events like the Chernobyl disaster and Belgium's dioxin scare make the debate on science and society quite different from 25 to 30 years ago and acceptance of new technology weak. 'The issue of science and governance is timely,' he said. 'We need to reorganise the dynamic between science and the public in democracy. We need to determine if we need regulators at certain levels for controversial issues like the release of genetically modified organisms and climate change.' Mr Busquin believes the Commission has a role as a regulator at that level. 'We need to move from philosophical discussion to action that can be used every day. The worst scenario is to remain static and do nothing. I want the Commission to increasingly become a centre of reference.' He has already identified three priority areas: - to place the question of science and governance in the problems of governance in general; - to look at the impact of research on politics and - use reflection and initiatives in this domain to help establish a new contract between science and society. The role of the media is also important, he added, taking the BSE crisis as an example. In this case, contradictory information was bad for the public, he said. 'The problem is that most of the public just don't see research until it is applied.' So without clear warning signs research must be developed using the precautionary principle. Europe's cultural diversity also complicates matters, he added, and any future legislation must take this into account. As a result he is calling for debate on how a science and technology reference system could be created on a global basis. 'We need to look at best practices in each country,' he added. The IPTS aimed to kick-start such debates at the EU level with the Brussels-based conference. After opening with a discussion on the theme of 'a new alliance between science, citizens and society', participants attended three parallel sessions on: science, citizens and the decision making process; risk control and precautionary research; and a scientific and technical European reference system. On the second day the emphasis was on research policy and European governance. Early on in the proceedings, the participants agreed that concrete steps are needed in this domain. In particular, there is a need to identify best practice; demonstrate a top down commitment; establish common guiding principles at a European level; establish interfaces and networks in key priority areas; and make use of relevant existing structures and experience (including the JRC), they said. 'This should take into account the implication for society in the enterprise of research; the role of economic sciences (social and human); the role of women in research; the question of expertise, necessary research and the opening up of the precautionary principle and the establishment of a European reference system.' They also recognised the need to reconcile ethical principles and to find a new dialogue 'between scientists and citizens and knowledge of scientist for citizens'. In general there was consensus that the general public should be able to participate in scientific debates that are relevant to their lives. Indeed, summing up discussions from the first workshop, delegates concluded that 'there is no argument in principle with the idea that participation by the public in science is a Good Thing. There was a general sense that science should be more responsive to social needs and that this can be achieved without compromising scientific quality.' This corresponds with the IPTS's earlier research: 'Increasingly citizens and stakeholders want to be closely associated to the decisions which affect them and demand that policy priorities reflect their main concerns. This is why the Commission has placed the promotion of new forms of governance facilitating participation and decentralisation at the heart of its current preoccupations. 'The relations between science and governance are therefore a key issue Europe must address if it is to take full advantage of the tremendous opportunities created by the advent of the knowledge economy and society, to revive the sense of ownership and the common purpose among its citizens, and to reduce, internally and internationally, the potential for disputes and conflicts.' (From a synthesis report of case studies 'On science and precaution in the management of technological risk, volume 1' - available from the JRC.) As a first step, the Commission wants to set up a framework of reference for a debate at a European level. This, it explains, should suggest actions that could be applied based on existing experience at the European level and the initiatives taken by the Commission in this domain, such as: - the high level group for life sciences on the question of communication with the public; - the creation of a proposal for an European food authority - the action on women in science; - an initiative to stimulate knowledge of science and research among the public and encourage young people's interest in science. The next framework programme will no doubt include provisions to encourage work in this area. Mr Busquin certainly hopes so: 'The question of science and governance is so vast that today's conclusions cannot be definitive. There is still much more to be done in this area but we must take immediate steps to address urgent problems and in this context, I think and I hope that the conference represents an important step towards our goal,' he concluded. The dialogue on science and governance will continue in Brussels with a conference on 'Genetics and the future of Europe' on 6 and 7 November. Mr Busquin will also raise this issue at the Nice summit later this year.