Making public policy public Research Futures 2013 University of St Andrews, 4 June 2013 Ben Dipper Office of the Chief Scientific Adviser Scottish Government
An hypothesis Much public policy is not fully public. The evidence base is often missing the full depth and diversity of public views. Public views come mainly from one-way consultation rather than two-way dialogue. This happens across the full public policy spectrum, not just in science policy.
The evidence In God we trust; all others must bring data William Edwards Deming
According to PAS 2011 73% agree that The Government should act in accordance with public concerns about science and technology
According to PAS 2011 78% agree that they or others should be more actively involved or consulted on science issues
According to PAS 2011 17% agree that The public is sufficiently involved in decisions about science and technology
According to PAS 2011 51% agree that Public consultation events are just public relations activities and don t make any difference to policy
According to PAS 2011 47% agree that Public consultation events are unrepresentative of public opinion
Making policy Monitor progress Implement the chosen option Decide on one option Review the evidence Engage customers & stakeholders GATHER EVIDENCE Assess risks & uncertainties Translate (new) evidence into (new) policy options Appraise these options Central and local government Evidence can be: scientific; technological; social; economic; public views - usually consultations.
What is needed? If you always do what you have always done, you will always get what you have always got (Henry Ford) New channels of communication are needed between government, scientists and the public. A richer evidence stream that includes public views alongside science needs to flow through those channels. New voices need to be heard in the derivation of those public views.
New channels of communication
New channels of communication Direct channels better documented and understood
New channels of communication Indirect channels less used and offer untapped potential
New channels of communication Open policy making to involve wider groups in the policy process. Greater openness to new thinking and gathering evidence and insight from external experts. Enables greater public engagement with the policy making process. New approaches may include: crowdsourcing; policy labs; involving delivery experts early in the process; using new media; outsourced policy making.
A richer evidence stream Three recognised modes of Public Science Engagement: Deficit: Promoting /celebrating science, one-way communication, scientific knowledge end in own right, ignoring lay knowledge, behaviour/policy change unlikely. Dialogue: Involving the public in critical thinking and decision making around (a) non-science issues that are underpinned by science or (b) the science being done. Participation: Citizen Science and involving the public in the science machine /governance - shaping questions for scientific research to answer and reviewing its products.
A richer evidence stream Three recognised modes of Public Science Engagement: Deficit: Promoting /celebrating science, one-way communication, scientific knowledge end in own right, ignoring lay knowledge, behaviour/policy change unlikely. Dialogue: Involving the public in critical thinking and decision making around (a) non-science issues that are underpinned by science or (b) the science being done. Participation: Citizen Science and involving the public in the science machine /governance - shaping questions for scientific research to answer and reviewing its products.
A richer evidence stream Public dialogue is an approach to involving citizens in decision making. Dialogues bring together a diverse mix of citizens with a range of views and values, and relevant policy makers and experts, to discuss, reflect and come to conclusions on complex and/or controversial issues Informed. Two-way. Facilitated. Deliberative. Diverse. Purposeful. Impartial. Expansive.
A richer evidence stream Much public dialogue takes places in a vacuum, separated from policy missing an opportunity for democratic gain. More dialogue, less deficit around policy issues that are informed, underpinned or influenced by science. Well devised (academic and methodical rigour), well timed (policy cycle) and well connected (appropriate participants).
New voices No policy should be decided without the full and direct participation those affected by that policy. Wider inclusion of marginalised groups. Democracy and good governance.
New voices Hard to reach? Not really. Many lenses through which groups may look hard to reach: socio-economics - low income, limited access to science goods ; geography rural or remote, limited access to science spaces ; culture, ethnicity, religion, language; age; gender; physical and mental health; digital / non-digital. Change the lens new methods, new venues, better awareness.
SIMD 2012 and U-R 2011 New voices
What can you do? Can t influence the agenda from the outside? Put yourself inside. See the big picture. Decide where you want to act - direct or indirect. Understand your policy area and spot dialogue opportunities. Proactively exert (gentle) direct or indirect pressure for public dialogue on your policy maker in central or local government. Work with and through partners whose business is public engagement and dialogue (e.g. SCs, SFs, NCCPE, Beltane, Sciencewise). Build new partnerships and organisational infrastructure. Science into Policy booklet from NERC.
What next? Adopt the public dialogue ethos. Go forth and evangelise!