See also Responsible Research, Super MoRRI
We should celebrate new discoveries such as the Higgs Boson and the Mars Rover but we also need to find a space where scientists and the public can be involved in a debate about responsible scientific innovation. Both the innovators and the rest of us need to be held to account.
The financial sector shows us what can happen when this accountability is missing. In the wake of the 2008 financial crash, politicians and commentators of all stripes talked of the crisis also being an opportunity to have a public debate on the rebalancing of our economy and how our financial system should work.
Years later, it’s clear that neither the debate nor the rebalancing happened. I’d argue that this is, at least in part, because so few people are engaged enough with the issues to competently participate in any such debate. With scientific advancements playing a larger role in our lives in every year that goes by, we can’t afford for the public to become as antipathetic towards science and scientists as it has towards finance and financiers.
It is vital that the processes and products of science are readily available for the public to understand and interrogate.
[…]
But this leaves most scientists in a fairly unique position of self-regulation. Many other professions and sectors have had this privilege or responsibility removed.
— www.theguardian.com/science/political-science/2015/dec/01/science-not-just-for-scientists
A broader community of critical friends would be good for science as a whole, and not just specific areas of research. This extended peer community, as advocated for by Funtowicz and Ravetz, should include representatives of all those that are affected by the subject and that are willing to discuss it. The breadth of their experience would be invaluable in keeping a check on what scientists are doing.
For instance, the recent review of the Research Councils, led by the British Science Association’s esteemed outgoing President, Sir Paul Nurse, had an advisory board made up entirely of scientists or people with a science background. Most of the Research Councils themselves, who disburse funding on behalf of the taxpayer, suffer from the same problem. For how many other sectors would this lack of independent input be tolerated?
— same article
Basically, divert funding based on where it will make difference. Today a good amount of funding comes from companies expecting profit, but the remainder is spent by scientists themselves on fields with prestige. Suppose the fund distribution was not based on prestige (many smart people now flock to physics due to prestige) but social good (almost no one is in anti-aging research due to prestige)?
They may not be talking much about funding actually… govs can already distribute funding as they please, in principle, though apparently scientists get to pick what to spend it on.
As an example, when the Human Fertilisation & Embryology Authority was created in 1991, its rules stipulated that the Chair, Deputy Chair and at least half of HFEA members needed to come from outside medicine or science. The group currently includes several people who have undergone IVF – people who are directly affected by the technology that the authority regulates.
Scientists themselves stand to benefit from this approach. For example, when it comes to making the case for a bigger role for science in society – whether that’s through government funding, industrial policy, education, or regulations – scientists themselves have something of a vested interest problem. Non-scientists could make the case far more effectively.
With more social engagement in science, more funding is politically doable.