1. Science organizations are primarily accountable to their peers and funders rather than the public. Public dialogue has more impact when supported by senior leadership and integrated into policymaking.
2. While transparency is important, it does not necessarily mean public views influence decisions. Organizations express conflicting cultures of being innovative but also inward-looking.
3. For public concerns about science governance to be addressed, the focus needs to shift from public engagement to governance in the public interest, with debate centered on social outcomes rather than just risks and benefits. Senior leaders must champion this approach.
Lectures: Scientists & Advocacy / Models of Science CommunicationMatthew Nisbet
Slides from class lectures and discussion in the American University course COM 589: "Communication, Culture and the Environment," Spring 2014.
http://climateshiftproject.org/com-589-communication-culture-and-the-environment-spring-2014/
Promoting collaborative RD networks in morocco some elements for thoughtIlyas Azzioui
this presentation highlights some aspects related to innovation systems in development countries, dominant values and some prevalent misconceptions that should be taken into consideration when building a collaborative R&D Network in a developing country like Morocco.
From seminar arranged by the EU FP Project Understanding the Relationship between Knowledge and Competitiveness in the Enlarging European Union” and the Research Council of Norway February 1 2008.
The deficits of the global research and innovation system are addressed and vision of responsible innovation as a new paradigm for innovation policy is outlined
Designing a connected research impact strategy for arts and humanities discip...Niamh NicGhabhann
These are the slides presented as part of an invited keynote given at Mary Immaculate College of Education in September 2017 on the subject of designing a connected research impact strategy for arts and humanities disciplines
STI for social justice and sustainable development: a New STEPS Manifesto for Global Science
Presentation by Dr Lidia Brito, Director of Science Policy at UNESCO, at a Policy Lab event at the Royal Society, 14 June 2010.
Data Visualisation and Information Design are increasingly employed in print, broadcast and web media to convey complex ideas or bring simple ones to life. The tools for maps, infographics and visualisations are becoming cheaper and easier to use, and the range of approaches is diversifying. At the same time, data of all kinds is becoming more accessible, whether on research funding (through the Gateways to Research platform), Open Government Data, or the results of individual research projects – as Open Access initiatives to make sharing scientific data a key element of journal publications. We will cover basic ideas and examples of visualisation for newcomers, how visualisation exists as part of wider engagement goals and include a more critical discussion about what visualisation needs to do in order to be a meaningful mechanism for engagement and participation.
Speakers: Andrew Steele (Cancer Research UK), Artemis Skarlatidou (UCL), Damien George, (University of Cambridge), Martin Austwick (UCL)
More Related Content
Similar to SCC 2012 Science Governance and the impact of public dialogue
Lectures: Scientists & Advocacy / Models of Science CommunicationMatthew Nisbet
Slides from class lectures and discussion in the American University course COM 589: "Communication, Culture and the Environment," Spring 2014.
http://climateshiftproject.org/com-589-communication-culture-and-the-environment-spring-2014/
Promoting collaborative RD networks in morocco some elements for thoughtIlyas Azzioui
this presentation highlights some aspects related to innovation systems in development countries, dominant values and some prevalent misconceptions that should be taken into consideration when building a collaborative R&D Network in a developing country like Morocco.
From seminar arranged by the EU FP Project Understanding the Relationship between Knowledge and Competitiveness in the Enlarging European Union” and the Research Council of Norway February 1 2008.
The deficits of the global research and innovation system are addressed and vision of responsible innovation as a new paradigm for innovation policy is outlined
Designing a connected research impact strategy for arts and humanities discip...Niamh NicGhabhann
These are the slides presented as part of an invited keynote given at Mary Immaculate College of Education in September 2017 on the subject of designing a connected research impact strategy for arts and humanities disciplines
STI for social justice and sustainable development: a New STEPS Manifesto for Global Science
Presentation by Dr Lidia Brito, Director of Science Policy at UNESCO, at a Policy Lab event at the Royal Society, 14 June 2010.
Data Visualisation and Information Design are increasingly employed in print, broadcast and web media to convey complex ideas or bring simple ones to life. The tools for maps, infographics and visualisations are becoming cheaper and easier to use, and the range of approaches is diversifying. At the same time, data of all kinds is becoming more accessible, whether on research funding (through the Gateways to Research platform), Open Government Data, or the results of individual research projects – as Open Access initiatives to make sharing scientific data a key element of journal publications. We will cover basic ideas and examples of visualisation for newcomers, how visualisation exists as part of wider engagement goals and include a more critical discussion about what visualisation needs to do in order to be a meaningful mechanism for engagement and participation.
Speakers: Andrew Steele (Cancer Research UK), Artemis Skarlatidou (UCL), Damien George, (University of Cambridge), Martin Austwick (UCL)
What is wellbeing and what does it mean for science communication? – H Room, Austin Pearce Building
DISCUSS IT strand
Can engaging minority audiences in science help improve wellbeing? How should we be doing it?
As of April 2011 the UK‟s Annual Population Survey has included questions on wellbeing. Some of the groups considered “hard to reach” such as people with disabilities, from specific ethnic groups (Black, Arab, Pakistani, and Indian) and unemployed, have lower scores in wellbeing. We will debate if and how the work done by the science communication community can impact the wellbeing of these groups.
Speakers: Saalam Abdallah (New Economic Foundation), John Haworth (University of Bolton), Chair: Amy Sanders (Wellcome Trust)
The intention of this session is to discuss the potential of design, as distinct from art, when engaging audiences with science. The tools used to engage the public with science continue to evolve, yet design is often overlooked. Designers have expertise that enables us to communicate more effectively across the complex variety of communication media now available. Design is an umbrella term that is as broad as science; it encompasses graphic design, product design, digital design, fashion design, games design and many other disciplines. Through collaboration with designers and/or integration of design from the outset of research projects, there is potential to better tackle the challenges of communicating science, leading to greater engagement. For designers and the science communication community to work together it is vital to create opportunities for the exchange of perspectives, knowledge and ideas in order to establish fertile ground for creative collaboration.
Speakers: Lizzie Crouch (DesignScience), Ellen Dowell (Imperial College, University of Surrey, Freelance), Andrew Friend (Designer), Anne Odling-Smee (DesignScience)
He aha te mea nui o te ao
What is the most important thing in the world?
He tangata, he tangata, he tangata
It is the people, it is the people, it is the people
This Maori proverb emphasises that people are the most important thing in the world: a concept we will explore in this session serving as a reminder of the importance of tailoring engagement towards your audience’s needs. We will present findings from research commissioned by the Wellcome Trust, which looked at reaching young people from low socio-economic backgrounds, alongside research commissioned by the British Science Association exploring how to include under-represented audiences in National Science and Engineering Week. Comparisons with other cultures will be presented by the University of the West of England, with a case study of engagement with Maori in a New Zealand science festival.
Speakers: Mat Hickman (Wellcome Trust), Hema Teji (British Science Association), Laura Fogg Rogers (University of the West of England), Chair: Karen Folkes (BIS)
Wikipedia, open access journals and social media have all transformed the way we look at copyright, and have brought the concept of open licences (such as Creative Commons) into the mainstream.
This movement offers great opportunities for science communicators, by opening up new avenues for communicating work and providing a wide range of high quality content at no cost.
This session will look at the practicalities of open licensing of science communication materials, for content producers (academics, press officers), custodians (museums, libraries, archives) and users (science shows, blogs and publications).
The session will give some case studies of good practice in this field, but the majority of the hour will be given over to practical exercises covering how, why and when to use open licences. This will be followed by a group discussion in which session participants and the panellists can share experiences and ask questions about the issues raised.
Speakers: Robert Kiley (Wellcome Trust), Rosie Coates (science made simple), Oli Usher (UCL)
Scientific research is a journey into the unknown, so teaching science with tried and tested practicals does not prepare students for the excitement and uncertainty of scientific discovery. Undertaking actual scientific research provides considerable learning opportunities for pupils and provides researchers with the opportunity to engage young people with their work in a rich and rewarding manner. Partnerships between researchers and young scientists can contribute to scientific breakthroughs and provide real insights and skills for aspiring young scientists. However, such approaches are not without their challenges. You will be presented with cases studies from space science and plant pathology research followed by the chance to engage in round table discussions with teachers, researchers, funders and science communicators involved in these projects. This will provide you the opportunity to discuss how you can involve schools and young people in research or support them to carry out their own scientific investigations.
Speakers: Becky Parker (Simon Langton Grammar School for Boys), Paul Nicholson (John Innes Centre), Sarah Calne (Wymondham High Academy), Chair: Tristan Maclean (BBSRC Inspiring Young Scientists)
Brief session for delegates new to the science communicator sector to find out what the big issues are, who the main players are and to meet other new people. This is only offered to people who are new to this Conference.
Delivered by Monica Lobo (British Science Association)
Despite considerable agreement that engaging science communication can stimulate interest in formal STEM study and careers; only relatively few providers report these outcomes. Given that insufficient young people are choosing to study STEM subjects and that the profile of those who do pursue STEM careers is too narrow, we are challenging three very different providers of informal science communication to measure the impact of their work. To do this our speakers will consider how science communicators can build sustainable business models that successfully balance impact and values against the need for funding and we will question if the sector is hampered by a perception that the only credible communicators of science are active researchers.
Facilitator: Tim Slingsby (British Council) Speakers: Wendy Sadler (science made simple), Jonathan Longfellow (Mad Science East Midlands), Eduardo Sáenz de Cabezón (The Big Van Theory)
Discover how, or if, public opinion influences science policy. What roles do learned societies and institutions take in raising the profile of certain issues, and when and where should they impact on science policy? This session will explore the inner workings of scientific public policy in the UK, especially in regards to the ways it affects allocation of resources.
Speakers: Jack Stilgoe (UCL), Becky Purvis (Royal Society), Chris Tyler (Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology) Chair: Roland Jackson (Sciencewise)
Public Attitudes to Science 2014 (PAS 2014) is the fifth in the series of studies looking at the UK public’s attitudes to science, scientists and science policy. PAS 2014 mixed survey research with a range of qualitative research strands, one of which was our “Day of Discovery” workshop. The Day of Discovery aimed to get the public themselves to tell us the best ways to engage people with science, and to generate new ideas for scientists, science communicators and policymakers to connect with the public. Based on this event, we have created a toolkit giving tips on how to use the findings from the PAS 2014 survey to start debates about better engagement with science. This session will present the toolkit, and explore how it can be used effectively with different audiences.
Speakers: Kerry Seelhoff (BIS), Sarah Pope (Ipsos MORI), Ben Johnson (Graphic Science), Chair: Katherine Mathieson (British Science Association)
Novel approaches to engagement activities that use narrative and immersive environments to create cohesive experiences.
In this session we will share our insights, experiences and learning from some of the unique festival experiences created in 2013 by the Contemporary Science team at the Science Museum. These festivals ranged from narrative driven games to researchers embedded in immersive environments all creating cohesive and memorable experiences. Specific engagement examples will highlight collaborations with research groups, theatre companies and artists. This session is relevant to any organisation, centre or individual looking to engage their audiences through interactive, immersive and theatrical experiences.
Speakers: Nicola Burghall (Science Museum), Daniel Richardson (UCL), John Hunter (non zero one), Chair: Jenny Jopson (Francis Crick Institute)
"Purposes of public engagement" diagram from the Science for All report. Used in the Introduction to Science Communication session at the 2013 Science Communication Conference
Presentation from "What's the true cost of free?" at the 2013 Science Communication Conference organised by the British Science Association - slides by Savita Custead, Jamie Gallagher and Debbie Syrop
Presentation from "Developing sustainable science communication enterprises" at the 2013 Science Communication Conference organised by the British Science Association - slides by Phil Smith
Presentation from "Developing sustainable science communication enterprises" at the 2013 Science Communication Conference organised by the British Science Association - slides by Kay Yeoman
Presentation from "Developing sustainable science communication enterprises" at the 2013 Science Communication Conference organised by the British Science Association - slides by Heather Rea
Presentation from "Engaging visitors through scientific discovery" at the 2013 Science Communication Conference organised by the British Science Association - slides by Ian Simmons, Jennifer DeWitt and Natasha Kirkham
Presentation from "Evaluating online engagement: Practical and critical" at the 2013 Science Communication Conference organised by the British Science Association - slides by Shane McCracken and Rosie Schultz
GDG Cloud Southlake #33: Boule & Rebala: Effective AppSec in SDLC using Deplo...James Anderson
Effective Application Security in Software Delivery lifecycle using Deployment Firewall and DBOM
The modern software delivery process (or the CI/CD process) includes many tools, distributed teams, open-source code, and cloud platforms. Constant focus on speed to release software to market, along with the traditional slow and manual security checks has caused gaps in continuous security as an important piece in the software supply chain. Today organizations feel more susceptible to external and internal cyber threats due to the vast attack surface in their applications supply chain and the lack of end-to-end governance and risk management.
The software team must secure its software delivery process to avoid vulnerability and security breaches. This needs to be achieved with existing tool chains and without extensive rework of the delivery processes. This talk will present strategies and techniques for providing visibility into the true risk of the existing vulnerabilities, preventing the introduction of security issues in the software, resolving vulnerabilities in production environments quickly, and capturing the deployment bill of materials (DBOM).
Speakers:
Bob Boule
Robert Boule is a technology enthusiast with PASSION for technology and making things work along with a knack for helping others understand how things work. He comes with around 20 years of solution engineering experience in application security, software continuous delivery, and SaaS platforms. He is known for his dynamic presentations in CI/CD and application security integrated in software delivery lifecycle.
Gopinath Rebala
Gopinath Rebala is the CTO of OpsMx, where he has overall responsibility for the machine learning and data processing architectures for Secure Software Delivery. Gopi also has a strong connection with our customers, leading design and architecture for strategic implementations. Gopi is a frequent speaker and well-known leader in continuous delivery and integrating security into software delivery.
Dev Dives: Train smarter, not harder – active learning and UiPath LLMs for do...UiPathCommunity
💥 Speed, accuracy, and scaling – discover the superpowers of GenAI in action with UiPath Document Understanding and Communications Mining™:
See how to accelerate model training and optimize model performance with active learning
Learn about the latest enhancements to out-of-the-box document processing – with little to no training required
Get an exclusive demo of the new family of UiPath LLMs – GenAI models specialized for processing different types of documents and messages
This is a hands-on session specifically designed for automation developers and AI enthusiasts seeking to enhance their knowledge in leveraging the latest intelligent document processing capabilities offered by UiPath.
Speakers:
👨🏫 Andras Palfi, Senior Product Manager, UiPath
👩🏫 Lenka Dulovicova, Product Program Manager, UiPath
Epistemic Interaction - tuning interfaces to provide information for AI supportAlan Dix
Paper presented at SYNERGY workshop at AVI 2024, Genoa, Italy. 3rd June 2024
https://alandix.com/academic/papers/synergy2024-epistemic/
As machine learning integrates deeper into human-computer interactions, the concept of epistemic interaction emerges, aiming to refine these interactions to enhance system adaptability. This approach encourages minor, intentional adjustments in user behaviour to enrich the data available for system learning. This paper introduces epistemic interaction within the context of human-system communication, illustrating how deliberate interaction design can improve system understanding and adaptation. Through concrete examples, we demonstrate the potential of epistemic interaction to significantly advance human-computer interaction by leveraging intuitive human communication strategies to inform system design and functionality, offering a novel pathway for enriching user-system engagements.
Securing your Kubernetes cluster_ a step-by-step guide to success !KatiaHIMEUR1
Today, after several years of existence, an extremely active community and an ultra-dynamic ecosystem, Kubernetes has established itself as the de facto standard in container orchestration. Thanks to a wide range of managed services, it has never been so easy to set up a ready-to-use Kubernetes cluster.
However, this ease of use means that the subject of security in Kubernetes is often left for later, or even neglected. This exposes companies to significant risks.
In this talk, I'll show you step-by-step how to secure your Kubernetes cluster for greater peace of mind and reliability.
Generating a custom Ruby SDK for your web service or Rails API using Smithyg2nightmarescribd
Have you ever wanted a Ruby client API to communicate with your web service? Smithy is a protocol-agnostic language for defining services and SDKs. Smithy Ruby is an implementation of Smithy that generates a Ruby SDK using a Smithy model. In this talk, we will explore Smithy and Smithy Ruby to learn how to generate custom feature-rich SDKs that can communicate with any web service, such as a Rails JSON API.
GraphRAG is All You need? LLM & Knowledge GraphGuy Korland
Guy Korland, CEO and Co-founder of FalkorDB, will review two articles on the integration of language models with knowledge graphs.
1. Unifying Large Language Models and Knowledge Graphs: A Roadmap.
https://arxiv.org/abs/2306.08302
2. Microsoft Research's GraphRAG paper and a review paper on various uses of knowledge graphs:
https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/blog/graphrag-unlocking-llm-discovery-on-narrative-private-data/
Kubernetes & AI - Beauty and the Beast !?! @KCD Istanbul 2024Tobias Schneck
As AI technology is pushing into IT I was wondering myself, as an “infrastructure container kubernetes guy”, how get this fancy AI technology get managed from an infrastructure operational view? Is it possible to apply our lovely cloud native principals as well? What benefit’s both technologies could bring to each other?
Let me take this questions and provide you a short journey through existing deployment models and use cases for AI software. On practical examples, we discuss what cloud/on-premise strategy we may need for applying it to our own infrastructure to get it to work from an enterprise perspective. I want to give an overview about infrastructure requirements and technologies, what could be beneficial or limiting your AI use cases in an enterprise environment. An interactive Demo will give you some insides, what approaches I got already working for real.
Connector Corner: Automate dynamic content and events by pushing a buttonDianaGray10
Here is something new! In our next Connector Corner webinar, we will demonstrate how you can use a single workflow to:
Create a campaign using Mailchimp with merge tags/fields
Send an interactive Slack channel message (using buttons)
Have the message received by managers and peers along with a test email for review
But there’s more:
In a second workflow supporting the same use case, you’ll see:
Your campaign sent to target colleagues for approval
If the “Approve” button is clicked, a Jira/Zendesk ticket is created for the marketing design team
But—if the “Reject” button is pushed, colleagues will be alerted via Slack message
Join us to learn more about this new, human-in-the-loop capability, brought to you by Integration Service connectors.
And...
Speakers:
Akshay Agnihotri, Product Manager
Charlie Greenberg, Host
Key Trends Shaping the Future of Infrastructure.pdfCheryl Hung
Keynote at DIGIT West Expo, Glasgow on 29 May 2024.
Cheryl Hung, ochery.com
Sr Director, Infrastructure Ecosystem, Arm.
The key trends across hardware, cloud and open-source; exploring how these areas are likely to mature and develop over the short and long-term, and then considering how organisations can position themselves to adapt and thrive.
Builder.ai Founder Sachin Dev Duggal's Strategic Approach to Create an Innova...Ramesh Iyer
In today's fast-changing business world, Companies that adapt and embrace new ideas often need help to keep up with the competition. However, fostering a culture of innovation takes much work. It takes vision, leadership and willingness to take risks in the right proportion. Sachin Dev Duggal, co-founder of Builder.ai, has perfected the art of this balance, creating a company culture where creativity and growth are nurtured at each stage.
DevOps and Testing slides at DASA ConnectKari Kakkonen
My and Rik Marselis slides at 30.5.2024 DASA Connect conference. We discuss about what is testing, then what is agile testing and finally what is Testing in DevOps. Finally we had lovely workshop with the participants trying to find out different ways to think about quality and testing in different parts of the DevOps infinity loop.
Software Delivery At the Speed of AI: Inflectra Invests In AI-Powered QualityInflectra
In this insightful webinar, Inflectra explores how artificial intelligence (AI) is transforming software development and testing. Discover how AI-powered tools are revolutionizing every stage of the software development lifecycle (SDLC), from design and prototyping to testing, deployment, and monitoring.
Learn about:
• The Future of Testing: How AI is shifting testing towards verification, analysis, and higher-level skills, while reducing repetitive tasks.
• Test Automation: How AI-powered test case generation, optimization, and self-healing tests are making testing more efficient and effective.
• Visual Testing: Explore the emerging capabilities of AI in visual testing and how it's set to revolutionize UI verification.
• Inflectra's AI Solutions: See demonstrations of Inflectra's cutting-edge AI tools like the ChatGPT plugin and Azure Open AI platform, designed to streamline your testing process.
Whether you're a developer, tester, or QA professional, this webinar will give you valuable insights into how AI is shaping the future of software delivery.
Software Delivery At the Speed of AI: Inflectra Invests In AI-Powered Quality
SCC 2012 Science Governance and the impact of public dialogue
1. Science, governance and the impact
of public dialogue
SCIENCE COMMUNICATION CONFERENCE 2012
14 & 15 May 2012, Kings Place, London
Chair : Laura Bowater, University of East Anglia
Speakers: Darren Bhattachary & Andrew Hunter, TNS BMRB
Jason Chilvers, University of East Anglia
Respondent: Roland Jackson, British Science Association and
Sciencewise
2. What we want to do today
1 5
What we want to get out of today Reflections from Roland
2 6
Setting the scene Over to you
3 7
Findings from the literature Feedback
4 8
Findings from the interviews Concluding thoughts
3. What do we mean by…
Public • Public engagement that specifically seeks to inform
decisions or policy
• Not explicitly concerned with raising the profile of
dialogue science or wider science communication activities
Policy • The people who make decisions in science
organisations – namely those responsible for the
makers leadership, funding and regulation of S&T in the UK
4. Beyond public engagement?
• The ongoing challenge of science, governance and public
trust (BSE, GM, Climategate…)
• From PUS to PES
• Impact of public dialogue initiatives on commissioning and
target institutions remains unclear
• Where next?
From public engagement as an end in itself
to ‘governing in the public interest’
5. Science, Trust and Public Engagement:
Exploring pathways to good governance
BIS/Sciencewise-ERC project (2010-2011)
Aim: “to better understand how science organisations are governed, the
responsiveness to public concerns in this context, and potential ways to
improve this”
3 research stages:
• Literature review - analysis of 17 public dialogues and emerging
governance responses
• In-depth interviews - 40 senior decision makers in science organisations
• Workshop – Royal Society, February 2011
6. The Sciencewise Dialogues
Model of Public Engagement
Dialogue Project Upstream Honest Issue
Broker Advocate
Animals containing human material (2010) ü
Big energy shift (2008–2009) ü
Community X-Change (2005–2008) ü ü
Drugsfutures (2006–2008) ü
Energy 2050 pathways (2010–2011) ü
Forensic use of DNA (2007–2008) ü
Geoengineering (2010) ü ü
Hybrids and chimeras (2006) ü
Industrial biotechnology (2008) ü ü
Landscape and ecosystem futures (2011–) ü
Nanodialogues (2005–2007) ü
Low carbon communities challenge (2010–2011) ü
Risky business (2005–2006) ü
Science horizons (2006–2007) ü
Stem cells (2007–2008) ü
Synthetic biology (2009–2010) ü
Trustguide (2005–2006) ü
7. Public concerns about science governance
1. The purpose of science and technology
What are the motivations for developing the science and technology? Whose
interests are they serving? Are they necessary? Are there alternatives?
2. Trustworthiness of institutions
Relative lack of trust in government to act in the public interest – concerns about
perceived proximity between government and the interests of industry
3. Feelings of powerlessness and exclusion
People feel „kept in the dark‟ and excluded from decisions over S&T - they express
a desire to feed their values into the science and innovation process
4. Speed and direction of science and innovation
Concerns over the pace of scientific and technological development – exceeds
scope for ethical and regulatory oversight
5. Equity, ethics and the culture of science
View that the culture of science discourages scientists from voicing concerns
over potential risks/uncertainties and social/ethical considerations
8. Emerging science governance responses
Public Values, Influence Public Transparency,
and Engagement Scrutiny, Accountability
• Public consultation (e.g. GM • Independent advisory bodies
Nation?) (AEBC, HGC, FSA)
• Crowdsourcing and open • Transparency mechanisms
Genomics innovation • Public scrutiny/representation
• „Uninvited‟ public (e.g. lay members)
engagement
• Upstream engagement / • Voluntary codes
public dialogue • Responsible innovation
Nanotechnology • Real time technology
assessment
• Anticipatory governance
• Science communication • Open data / open coding
Climate Science • Participatory integrated • Institutional redesign (e.g. IPCC)
assessment
9. Implications
• Some public concerns at least partly responded to (e.g.
inclusion)
• For other concerns responses are less evident (e.g. over the
purposes of emerging S&T and speed of innovation)
• Need for a more systemic perspective of the science
governance system
• Need to understand the missing link:
What mediates institutional responses and responsiveness to public
concerns about the governance of science and technology?
10. 1. Science governance is expert led - efforts to reflect public values remain
largely marginal as public concerns don't resonate
Expert led model of
governance
More appetite for
engaging public
around wider
strategic goals for
research
Less appetite to
involve public directly
in funding decisions
Key people: Decision making culture led
from top.
CEOs, Ministers, Governing
Support for dialogue needed
Boards, Senior Staff, The
Executive/Senior Civil from key people to be
Servants successful
11. 2. The big strategic issue is the economy. This can create opportunities and threats for new
science governance models such as dialogue.
Less cash for
research and
administration
Retrenchment It’s the Increased focus
and loss of
governance economy, on
collaboration
capacity
stupid
Maximise
impact of
activities and
investments
12. 3. Science organisations feel accountable to their peers, funders and business. The public
are a lower level accountability.
Legal and
administrative
Higher level
accountability Constituency – e.g
other scientists
Customers
e.g. business
Societal accountability was
seen as the lowest priority
Public and generally not
embedded in routine
Lower level structures and practices of
accountability organisations.
13. 4. Public dialogue exercises have had greater impact in organisations where there is
senior support and structures to integrate dialogue in policy.
Public engagement had more impact where:
Engagement
led by policy
Decentralised rather than
rather than comms
hierarchical
Managers structure
willing to take
risks
Supportive
CEO Organisational cultures play a key part in the relationship between
engagement and decision making. Science based organisations
expressed conflicting cultures: being at once innovative, creative
and open; as well as inward looking, elitist and over centralised.
14. Figure 1: Relative openness of organisations
5. Being open and transparent doesn't necessarily mean organisations account for public
views in decision-making
Openness and transparency are necessary but not sufficient conditions for good governance.
Government
Academies/
departments;
Businesses Membership Regulators
research
organisations
funders
Increasing openness and transparency
15. 5 Implications
Focus science
Focus on policy debate Rebrand SIS
on social Make better
governance in Lead from committees
outcomes use of
the public policy and look for
rather than collaboration
interest rather directorates opportunities
risks and and existing
than public rather than to align them
benefits of a structures for
engagement comms to internal
technology engagement
interests
16. Science, governance and the impact
of public dialogue
SCIENCE COMMUNICATION CONFERENCE 2012
14 & 15 May 2012, Kings Place, London
Roland Jackson, British Science Association and
Sciencewise
17. Reflections: what is the public interest?
Generalising from the synthetic biology public dialogue:
• What is the purpose?
• Why do you want to do it?
• What are you going to gain from it?
• What else is it going to do?
• How do you know you are right?
18. Reflections: levels of engagement
Recognise the different contexts in which the „public interest‟ is
relevant:
• Funder (e.g. BIS, BBSRC)
• Institution (e.g. Rothamsted)
• Research Group
• Researcher
19. Over to you…
1. To what extent do these findings make sense
to you?
2. How can science organisations better
account for public concerns about the
governance of science?
3. What does this mean for you in your own
role?
Editor's Notes
A dominant expert-led governance model, particularly among learned societies and research funders. Technical and policy expertise to the fore of decision making in all organisations. Little appetite for including the public directly in specific funding decisions. The public are envisaged as playing a broader strategic role, informing policy in broad terms, helping set priorities and an overall direction of travel; can lead to extractive engagementLeadership positions usually filled by senior academics with a technical scientific background. Wider forms of expertise often excluded or restricted to non-executive roles (e.g. legal or finance expertise, civil society groups etc.)Publics are often viewed in a somewhat instrumental ‘sense check’ role, ensuring that the research agenda chimes with public values, engenders trust, and thus shores up the scientific ‘license to practice’.
Publicly funded research has received at best a flat cash settlement, a reduction in real terms. Private sector also facing reduced demand and reduced investment income.Organisational focus is on core business rather than cross-cutting priorities.Less money for research and administrationReduced capacity to spot strategic opportunities, administrate funding or develop evidence for policymaking.Retrenchment and loss of governance through restructuringRestructures giving clearer focus for agencies but also leading to narrower framing of governance issues and remits?Mixed views on benefits - e.g. HGC, HfEA, HTA etc. Are these restructures a useful rationalisation of governance or a loss of valuable independent voices? A need to be seen to maximise impact of activities and investments Government expecting a demonstrable ROI, with policymakers increasingly focussed on research outcomes. Haldane Principle must apply to decisions on research funding.Increased focus on collaboration and opportunities for shared solutions/delivery. Collaboration as a spur to innovation and improving governance and strategy, bringing together HEIs, business and government for pre-competitive planning to ensure tightly targeted investment.
Need to focus on governance in the public interest rather than public engagementLed from policy rather than communicationsRebrand SIS committees and look for opportunities to align them to internal interests‘Reframe’ debates around science policy in terms of social outcomes rather than risks and benefits of specific technologiesMake better use of collaboration and existing structures for engagement