Listening to the people
There are many ways to involve the public, but no perfect solutions.
Some parts of risk assessment are technical – how long a chemical persists in the environment, for instance. But what kinds of risk are acceptable, and for what benefits, is a matter of judgement.
Several groups will want to have their say: scientists may be excited by the opportunities (as well as concerned about the environment); business people may be driven by a desire to make money; environmental groups will want to see 'green' issues considered.
Some argue that the public should also have a voice, as the ultimate beneficiaries (or victims). Working out how that can be done is tricky, though. An opinion survey gathers information from many people, but does not deal with the complexities of the issue and results can depend on how questions are phrased.
An alternative is to organise longer discussions with a smaller number of people. These deliberative methods will not be statistically representative, as an opinion poll can be. But, carefully handled, such efforts can produce important insights into what kinds of things ordinary people want taken into account and what values should inform decision making.
Sometimes, these discussions get pretty elaborate, as in the so-called 'consensus conference', where a group of people comes together several times. They study the topic in between meetings, have technical experts on hand to answer questions when they meet, and then all work together on a final report.
A less costly, but still useful, method is the 'focus group'. Here a small group responds to specific issues posed by a trained moderator, who guides but does not control the conversation.
Sometimes a variety of methods is used, e.g. an opinion poll may be followed up by focus groups. This can help to maximise the strengths of each method and minimise the limitations.
Whatever method is adopted, there is still the issue of how all the information gathered is used. Should it be taken up lock, stock and barrel? Or considered as one input among many? Expectations are crucial: raise them too high and people will expect their views to be acted on and be disillusioned if they are not; dampen them down and people may wonder why they should bother to take part.
A citizens' jury, called Nano Jury UK, spent five weeks from 25 May 2005 exploring nanotechnologies. Based in Halifax, the 20 members of the citizens' jury heard evidence from a range of experts about future potential applications, risks and benefits.
Nano Jury UK was set up by the IRC (Interdisciplinary Research Centre) in Nanotechnology; the University of Cambridge; Greenpeace UK; the Guardian; and the Policy, Ethics and Life Sciences Research Centre of the University of Newcastle.