Email
In its infancy, science was sponsored by rich benefactors who favoured areas of their own liking. Today, despite being more equitably financed by public intervention, science seems to evolve in parallel to, rather than in sync with, society. In the future, should citizens have a direct say in priority setting for science and technology developments to rebalance the supply and the demand?
The science and society gap
Despite representing only 7% of the world's population, Europe produces about 30% of its total 'knowledge'. But compared to others, we fail to deliver a proportionate impact on the daily life of our citizens. Indeed, we often lag behind on innovation by failing to bring to the market place affordable goods and services "made in Europe".
Europe holds a 29% share of global patents in photonics, for example, but produces only 13% of photovoltaic cells, despite the fact Europe representing 80% of the total market. We can argue about the reasons, be it structural (incentives, barriers) or cultural (a low entrepreneurial mindset). One reason is surely our long tradition of 'free-minded' research, as opposed to the solution-oriented cultures of countries such as Japan.
As a consequence, our citizens often fail to see the link between science and its applications; for example, who knows that a synchrotron infrastructure, a particle accelerator worth several £100m will help discover vaccines. This gap can help to explain the generally low interest in science by the layman. It is certainly a reason why many politicians still consider science as an immediate cost and not as a long-term investment.
In general, Europeans do seem to trust scientists, despite the fact that they – and politicians – have limited insight into their achievements. The exponential increase in the complexity of science and technology will only widen the separation between scientists and citizens. Nevertheless, there are signs of improvement: the EU's forthcoming Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme aims to address top-down societal challenges such as health and wellbeing, green transport and food security.
Excellence or relevance: which counts more?
Nobel prizes are not won by constraining scientists into 'applied sciences' and asking for concrete outputs. Freedom of initiative is a fundamental driver for scientific excellence and not all areas are prone to short-term science-driven discovery. The difficulty is deciding on scientific priorities.
In general, it falls to high level scientific expert committees to advise on how to share the cake; science policymakers cannot do this by themselves. Naturally such a process has flaws, as some scientific fields are better organised than others in defending their interests, for example the funding of large scale infrastructure in fundamental physics and astronomy. And there is, no neutral judge who can decide if, say, marine biology is more important than neurosciences. There is no perfect system for this.
We cannot rely solely on the wish that scientists' own interests will bring about public good. The personal and general desire of citizens is also a driver for defining research priorities. After all, most research is funded by taxpayer's money. Introducing a citizen's advice (as a kind of weighting factor) in certain science and technology fields is feasible. A number of initiatives are being launched, but they too have their drawbacks.
Far from representing the 'average' citizen, only people who have a real interest in the matter will express themselves. It boils down to asking an opinion from yet another elite. And additional biases exist such as the distortion of citizen choices by special interest groups, or simply the media shaping opinions.
A new source of funding and opinion
A simpler approach could be based on philanthropic crowdfunding. Crowdfunding tools have already shown significant success in generating investment for start-ups or public donations when other sources have dried up. The principle being that any individual – indeed any entity – can provide a financial contribution via an internet-based application to a specific (research) project.
Such projects could already be selected for funding (the crowd simply providing additional resource) or be in the process of being selected – at regional, national or EU level. In the case of projects competing for public funding, crowdfunding is a measure of citizen interest and could be used to help decision-makers and experts in their final choice. The same principle could be used for fundraising and at the same time help rank prize-winning awards for science, education and culture contests.
Citizens do not need to be experts to have an opinion. Indeed, specialists in cancer don't understand astrophysics any better than most laymen. So, anyone could 'vote with their heart' for areas ranging from the discovery of life on Mars up to finding a cure for Parkinson's disease.
Whatever the solution to securing a more democratic orientation for science and technology, researchers can not afford to stay detached anymore from societal needs or else they may lose their most precious asset: the trust of society.
Didier Schmitt is a scientific adviser to the European Commission – the opinions expressed in this article are those of the author
This content is brought to you by Guardian Professional. Looking for your next university role? Browse Guardian jobs for hundreds of the latest academic, administrative and research posts
;