GIGO

Talking Technology

How do you go about encouraging public debate on areas of scientific interest that either are or will have an impact on the public?

The Talking Technology process [seeQuick Dips, July] aims to broaden this by encouraging Jo Public to play a role in learning about science issues, listening to a variety of experts and opinions, formulating questions for further discussion at an open conference, and preparing a report on their reactions for consideration by the relevant agencies.

The first such Talking Technology conference was held recently to discuss issues of plant biotechnology, particularly those related to genetic engineering. Who owns genetically engineered plants, what are the likely environmental effects and risk factors involved in this technology, how are people being educated about this new technology? The range of questions was impressive, the responses (for the most part) illuminating.

In commenting on this process back in July, David Russell of the Consumers Institute said that the conferences could "help remove barriers between the public and the sometimes arrogant' scientific world". Call me biased if you will, but the major examples of arrogance I saw at the conference came from those driven by an ideological background rather than a scientific one. It is, sadly, an all-too-common problem when confronting an environmentally related issue that has no simple answers, and one which can have a devastating effect on the consultation process. Take an ideologue who is prepared to deal in absolutes and provide them with a forum and, without adequate preparation, it is all too easy for them to ride roughshod over more cautious, considered opinion.

The Kaimanawa horse "debate" showed the vulnerability of informed, long-term public consultation (in the form of 4,500 public submissions, numerous public hearings over a five-year period etc) to the over-riding media message of the moment. It was heartening to see the members of the Talking Technology panel listening carefully to the substance, rather than the rhetoric, that was presented to them. Would that we could encourage our all-informing media to follow suit on science issues...

It will be interesting to see where the Talking Technology process leads -- it's all very well to have 16 members of the public fully briefed on a potentially contentious science issue, but there's lot more people out there who need to be informed if they are to make sensible, sustainable decisions about our society.

Vicki Hyde is the editor of New Zealand Science Monthly.