Paper 69: Discriminating Citizens: Making Judgements about Science
The science of genomics raises important questions about what it means to be a citizen in a scientific culture. Critics of genetics frequently point to public concern about genomics as a means of legitimating their own stance, whilst scientists and other proponents tend to see public opposition as based on, at best, partial information. In this paper, the complex and often contradictory rationales for public participation in debates about contested science are examined and the distinctions between engaged/un-engaged participants and expert/representative forums emphasised. The first distinction recognises the role played by experience and expertise in challenging technical arguments, whilst the second emphasises that debates about science and technology need are not solely matters of contested fact. Using these distinctions, the paper argues that the categories of ‘scientists' and ‘the public' need to be replaced by a more subtle differentiation between experts and citizens. The effect of this alternative terminology is to permit a more inclusive approach to the ‘technical' whilst providing a positive role for the non-expert citizen in the democratic control of science policy.
Paper 69: Discriminating Citizens: Making Judgements about Science, Series Working Paper Series, (2005)
Additional Information
The research reported in this paper was funded by the ESRC Centre for the Economic and Social Aspects of Genomics, a collaboration between Cardiff and Lancaster Universities. An early draft of the paper was presented at the annual meeting of the Society for the Social Studies of Science held at Paris in August 2004. The authors are grateful to Harry Collins and Ian Welsh for their detailed comments on earlier drafts of the paper and to Roland Bal, Rob Hoppe, Willem Halfmann, Sujatha Raman, and others at the ‘Comparative Perspectives on Scientific Expertise for Public Policy' workshop held at Amserdam in December 2004 for more informal discussions about the paper and ideas that lie behind it. The paper has benefited greatly from this advice and discussion and any errors that remain are the responsibility of the authors alone.