Engaging in innovation: towards an integrated science policy

This paper argues that public engagement in science should be seen as an asset to innovation, not as a damage limitation strategy. It focuses on the UK government’s ten-year 'Science and innovation investment framework'.

The paper is concerned with two key strands of science policy. The first strand is about promoting science and technology. At the centre of recent policy reports on science, including the Framework, is the challenge of innovation. Put simply, this is to improve Britain’s record at turning research in marketable products. Although the challenge sounds straightforward, the government treats innovation as a complex, non-linear process, involving consumers and business people as well as scientists.

The second strand is about risk and public trust in science. It has only become an issue for science policy over the past ten to twenty years. Within the past five to ten years, there has been a sea change in the way it is understood. Whereas the stress was previously on deficiencies in public understanding, it is now placed on public engagement.

There are ‘binary’ and ‘integrated’ versions of the public engagement strand. The binary version focuses on improving communication between the scientific community and the public. It assumes that they are separate. The integrated version argues that public concerns about science in contemporary society hit on substantial problems, and should be taken seriously. It treats science and society as conjoined.

The binary approach prevails in science policy. However, this paper argues that an integrated approach would be more consistent with current policy thinking on innovation, which recognises that science and technology transfer are non-linear processes that already routinely involve people who are not scientists.

This paper proposes establishing a new Research and Technology Organisation (RTO) to promote public engagement in innovation. RTOs, or technology intermediaries, specialise in innovation. In contrast to the RTOs that already exist in the UK this one would be public, in four senses:

• It would be non-profit organisation with a remit to actively promote and facilitate innovation in the public interest, and to engage citizens in project design.
• It would be directed by a board of stakeholders from government, business and civil society, accountable to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and closely advised by a citizen panel.
• Its operation would be transparent to public scrutiny.
• It would obtain a proportion of its funds from central government, sufficient to sustain its commitment to transparency and public engagement.

The new RTO would facilitate innovation and provide expertise in public engagement to businesses, universities and government departments. It would complement commercial RTOs rather than competing with them.

This paper ends by considering the risks associated with establishing a new organisation to help integrate public engagement and innovation.

Click on the link below to download the paper.