Windows or Doors? Experts, publics and open policymaking | Jack Stilgoe

Conclusions from the Phillips Inquiry'Trust can only be generated by openness''Openness requires recognition of uncertainty, where it exists''The public should be trusted to respond rationally to openness''Scientific investigation of risk should be open and transparent''The advice and reasoning of advisory committees should be made public' Openness, according to Phillips, is not just about transparency. It also, crucially, is about being open-minded. Opening up expert advice means paying attention to scientific uncertainties, rather than obscuring them. It means opening up the inputs to scientific advice (who is allowed to contribute, how and on what terms?). And it means changing the outputs from advice, such that they do not offer single prescriptions but rather help to inform the range of available policy options.In the 1990s, a spate of science policy issues, such as those around BSE, genetically modified crops and in vitro fertilisation, led to the creation of new institutional machinery, including the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, the Agricultural and Environmental Biotechnology Commission, the Human Genetics Commission and the Food Standards Agency. These bodies all blended science with other inputs – from ethics, social science, interest groups and members of the public – in order to build more credible policy. Much of this institutional machinery has since been scrapped or downsized. There is a danger that, as crises fade, administrations forget t...
Source: Guardian Unlimited Science - Category: Science Authors: Tags: Blogposts Science policy guardian.co.uk Source Type: news