Cross-fertilization of ideas

Debashish Munshi & Priya Kurian

Have you noticed what happens when a physicist sits at the same table with a psychologist; a biologist with an artist; a technocrat with an environmental activist; a bureaucrat with a bioethicist; a nanotechnologist with a social scientist; a West-trained theorist with an indigenous scholar; or a policy practitioner with an academic? The language of communication changes as each person moves away from the loaded jargon of one field to reach out to the other. 

Communication lies at the heart of public understanding of science. The two of us saw communication blossoming when we brought together natural and physical scientists, social scientists, indigenous scholars, artists, poets, activists, and policy practitioners at an international symposium on transforming public engagement on controversial science and technology at the University of Waikato this week.

All the participants had something to say on new and emerging technologies ranging from nanotechnology, synthetic biology, and genetic engineering to gene mapping and assisted reproductive technologies. But, confronted as they were with a wide variety of other points of view, they had an opportunity to reflect on their own positions and engage in unique forms of deliberation. They each made an attempt to listen to and understand the other and re-formulate their own articulations.

One of the keynote speakers at the symposium, Professor Shaun Hendy, an award-winning scientist and science communicator, emphasised that the “value of scientific knowledge depends on the context – the better scientists are at providing the context, the better public understanding of science will be.” A more detailed account of Professor Hendy’s talk can be found in Peter Griffin’s Science Media Centre blog while a summary of the policy engagement session on science communication is available in Dr Alison Campbell’s BioBlog. 

Indeed, the highlight of the symposium were the six policy engagement sessions which followed panel presentations on the themes of ‘citizenship and deliberative democracy’; ‘science communication’; ‘new technologies and ethics’; ‘indigenous science’; ‘science-society interface’; and ‘designing public engagement’. It is at these engagement sessions that people from a variety of disciplines and backgrounds with a shared interest in potentially controversial new technologies deliberated and worked on establishing a common ground among what initially seemed like polarised views.

The tone of the symposium was set by Professor John Dryzek of the Australian National University who made the point that “deliberative democracy rests on the idea that democratic legitimacy depends on the right, opportunity, and capacity of those subject to a collective decision to participate in consequential deliberation about its content”. 

In another keynote address, indigenous scholar Associate Professor Kim TallBear of the University of Texas at Austin presented a powerful critique of the “unethical technoscientific research done on indigenous people by scientists whose assumptions and goals are shaped by a colonial mindset”. This keynote was followed by a stimulating session on “critical indigenous views on biocolonialism and the impact of new technologies” led by Associate Professor Leonie Pihama of the Te Kotahi Research Institute. The symposium had a strong Maori participation. In thought-provoking engagement sessions led by Sandy Morrison and Maui Hudson of the University of Waikato, participants suggested that the very process of decision making on scientific funding should be flipped so as to be driven by community needs and social justice commitments rather than narrowly defined economic gain. The symposium also featured a kapa haka performance by students of the Tai Wananga, a school dedicated to the teaching of science and innovation with a strong Maori perspective. The performance was coached and choreographed by their teacher, Talei Morrison, who herself recently completed Masters research on ‘Maori perspectives on new and emerging technologies’. 

The final keynote was by Professor Lyn Kathlene of the Spark Policy Institute, USA, who talked about the need for “contextual creativity” to shape public engagement. “Flexibility, out-of-the-box thinking, and a willingness to venture into unknown territory are necessary ingredients to designing a process that works for both policy planners and citizens”, she said. 

Indeed, nurturing contextual creativity was the goal of the symposium. If the cross-disciplinary conversations are an indication, participants would have made several steps towards this goal.

Clearing the air?

Does scientific evidence demonstrating the reality of anthropogenic climate change make a difference to public understandings of the issue?

In a forthcoming PUS article (available online), Kersty Hobson of the University of Oxford and Simon Niemeyer of the Australian National University focus on the effects of information and deliberation on climate change scepticism. Their analysis shows the prevalence of five discourses spanning a range of scepticism about climate change. Crucially, their findings demonstrate that deeply held beliefs against anthropogenic climate change are hard to shake.

The research carried out by the two scholars shows that the use of scenarios and deliberation in the research does allow many sceptics to shift their position to a milder position along the continuum of sceptic beliefs. But those who begin with hardened positions of climate denial not only do not move but instead become “more dogmatic and belligerent, suggesting that public climate change communication strategies or interventions can unintentionally alienate such individuals further.”

Despite the weight of scientific evidence, climate sceptics and deniers are unlikely to go away any time soon. Hobson and Niemeyer’s piece begins with a quote from Richard Black, environment correspondent of the BBC, who said in a 2007 article:  “What sceptics believe is an important question, because their voices are heard in governments, editors’ offices, boardrooms, and – most importantly—the street.” It is important, therefore, that we continue to think about how best to respond to climate scepticism.

One reason why voices of denial continue to be heard above the general acceptance of climate change research is the continued high level funding by industry—and wealthy individuals—for outfits paid to oppose the science. For example, a U.S think tank “backed by fossil fuel interests” has been reported to have funded a group of climate change sceptics in New Zealand (see report).

In contrast to the vocal presence of climate change deniers in the developed world, Bruno Takahashi and Mark Miesner of the State University of New York, in another forthcoming article in PUS (also available online), find that there is a notable absence of sceptical voices in the media coverage of climate change in Peru despite an otherwise heavy reliance on international newswires.