Citizen juries to enable the public to fully participate in setting policy on controversial issues of science such as GM foods should be developed, according to a leading social scientist, Prof Steve Fuller, of the University of Durham.
Speaking yesterday in Dublin City University, he said such juries - which, for example, would consider the merits of a particular technology - had been successful and demonstrated "the public's ability to reason in an enlightened fashion about technical matters".
Social scientists should develop and promote the use of these juries. Issues relating to biotechnology, health and the environment were the most obvious topics for consideration, added Prof Fuller, who was speaking on the theme "Is Science Communicable?"
A series of "science wars" had raged between social and natural scientists over the place of science in contemporary society, he said. In addition to developing citizen juries, science communication courses for natural science students would facilitate a truce. Such courses would enable them to locate their career interests "amidst the complex social relations in which the natural sciences increasingly figure", he suggested.
Likewise, greater involvement by social scientists in public debates concerning what is described as "nature versus nurture" issues, which often focus on the latest finding of evolutionary biology, molecular biology or neuro psychology, would improve relations. "Social scientists can function as informed critics mediating between what one all too often finds in media presentations: the scientist versus the theologian."
His lecture was part of a series of events at DCU on science communication, including an award ceremony for graduates of the Master's in Science Communication programme which has been running at DCU and Queen's University for the past three years.
