Greenpeace Research Labs: Dr R Stringer
It is not difficult to find fault with current research priorities, considering nearly US$100 billion was spent on the International Space Station when barely a fraction of that has been spent on research into preventing and curing malaria.
Similarly, any sensible agriculturalist knows the importance of a healthy soil yet billions of pounds are spent on genetic engineering of plants and considerably less on soil ecology research.
Why are research agendas still essentially set in closed deliberation by small groups of senior scientists and corporations? If technological change is potentially more significant than the election of prime ministers and presidents isn't some public say-so a matter of democratic rights?
Why is it that science in public policy has a history of downplaying scientific uncertainties, especially in relation to questions around the environment? For example the public policy position on the impact of low-level radiation, persistent organic chemicals and organophosphate pesticides, were not 'scientific judgements' but political judgements hiding behind the discussions of scientific committees.
The range of perspectives that are brought to bear on science-in-policy questions is often far too narrow in only utilising traditional scientific disciplines. Farmers, health workers, patients, naturalists and others can all have important insights into how policy might work, or failings in the empirical knowledge base.
Despite all this it is worth noting that most science is NOT controversial. Indeed popularity of scientific TV programmes has seemingly never been higher, showing a huge hunger amongst people at large for scientific information and perspectives.
More information:
Download the report, Transforming science: a matter of public involvement
