Your Federal Quarterly Tax Payments are due April 15th Get Help Now >>

ESRC Science in Society workshop on Public Engagement in by rfb16446


									                             ESRC Science in Society workshop on
                         Public Engagement in Science and Technology
                                       12th May 2005

                                             Workshop report

The purpose of the workshop was to identify issues surrounding concerns about trust and
risk in scientific advice from the government, focusing especially on
    • the variation in trust in different key actors in science (e.g. scientists, funders,
         government, business, independent bodies)
    • how risk/benefit perceptions with respect to different issues are formed and why they
         change over time
    • confidence and trust in, and awareness of, scientific advice
This was with the intention of identifying what we already know about the difficulties in this
area, and what constitutes the main gaps in understanding of it.

Session One
Steve Rayner welcomed everyone to the meeting, noting that this workshop was one of the
opportunities developed by the programme office to bring members of the Science in Society
research community into closer contact with decision makers in government, non-
government organisations and industry. It is hoped that by forging relationships in this way it
will be possible to bring social science research to the attention of those who are in a position
to put it into practice.

Rayner began the discussion with a presentation which focussed on the Science in Society
Programme and the insights gained thus far from the research conducted through its 45
projects. He talked about degrees of trust in science and the link between declining
confidence in science and declining deference to figures of authority, including politicians and
scientists, the problems encountered by attempts at science communication to the lay public,
and the various models of public participation in science that had been employed in various
contexts in Europe and elsewhere. In particular, he presented the notion of the ‘scientific
connoisseur’ as the model lay citizen and proposed that an objective should be to achieve a
level of connoisseurship amongst all citizens that would reflect a general level of scientific
understanding in the non-practitioner population1.

Gary Kass introduced the OST perspective to the contributors, highlighting the need for
social researchers and policy developers to consider and recognise each other’s needs and
values when progressing their own agendas. He stressed the commitment of the OST to
further research in this area in science communication and noted the work that MORI had
already done on their behalf. The Horizon scanning team, which was represented at the

 For further information on the work that has been carried out in this area, see the report on the workshop that
was organised by the Science in Society Programme, http://www.sci- Hard
copies of the report can be obtained from
meeting by three of its members, had now been established and would enable the OST to
make substantial progress in identifying future areas of opportunity.

Public criteria for assessment of Science & Technology
Gary Kass introduced his paper on public criteria for assessment of science and technology.
This paper included ideas on policy as well as research and was circulated to participants at
the workshop in order to seek their contributions to complement and develop those already
contained in the document.

During the discussion of the document, the following points were raised:
   • The paper considers the public as both subject and object: subject because it has
       agency and exercises choice and object because of the need to determine
   • The paper was about horizon-scanning as well as matters of policy;
   • There was a tendency in the paper to see the ‘public’ as a static and easily
       identifiable entity and that this wasn’t necessarily a helpful perspective;
   • Assumptions cannot be made about the attitudes of different groups towards
       participation in science debate and consultation;
   • The traditional socio-economic model is too restrictive when accounting for reasons
       and difficulties experienced when attempting to participate in consultation activities;
   • Science policy decisions must be informed by adequate representation of the general
       public and the current participatory model therefore needs to be altered;
   • Social scientists should not encourage mis-representation of publics in research;
   • Groups with socio-economic similarities frequently differ greatly in their attitudes to
       participatory activity and this needs to be considered;
   • Social solidarities exist, usually temporarily and concerning specific issues, which
       cross socio-economic divides. Specific issues of controversy usually create these
   • Public engagement should be about science and technology becoming part of
       peoples’ lives, not about expecting them to engage with science and technology;
   • There is a need for policy-makers and officials to fit into Queen’s Speeches and
       planned legislation – timeframes are often short and programmes are hectic;
   • It is not necessarily useful to separate public engagement with science and
       technology from other matters of public engagement – creates a special case for S&T
       that might not be appropriate;
   • Decisions made by government are not scientific, they are political. The two do not
       always coincide;
   • Scientific advice is not equally spread across all sectors, so it does not have the
       opportunity to inform policy equally;
   • Lack of trust in government is suggestive of an empowered sceptical public –such a
       public is a forerunner of the connoisseur and is pro-science, not anti-science;
   • Citizens who place complete and unquestioning trust in government could make for
       an unhealthy democracy;
   • High trust groups are trusted because there is frequently not an alternative eg
   • Responses to questionnaires of the public do not always match behaviour;
   • ‘Revealed preferences’ may not be the best way to follow publics’ broader concerns –
       Science and Society needs to find a new currency;
   • There is a danger of consultation being viewed as ‘rubber stamping’ decisions that
       have already made;
   • ‘Issues’ are of most importance to parliamentarians and identifying the point at which
       a topic becomes an issue is a priority in government.

Session Two

John Forrester, of the Stockholm Environment Institute at the University of York, began the
discussion by highlighting the need to bridge gaps between ‘evidence-based’ and
‘experience-based’ research. He noted that modelling of responses has not always produced
the ‘right’ result as far as policy is concerned and that scientific approaches and policy
approaches are not, therefore, always aligned. The objective-orientated policy approach was
focused on achieving consensus, whereas science does not usually have pre-defined
objectives and does not seek to form a consensus view. Indeed, the fragmentation of
scientific fields can often be a barrier to engagement. He illustrated this with a diagram:


               Citizen Knowledge                                  Scientific expertise

              Multiplicity of views                              Multiplicity of views

As both citizen knowledge and scientific expertise are fragmented, neither can possibly
communicate from a position of consensus on single issues.

A second diagram was also presented to help to understand the nature of the experience of
science in the public.

                                      Policy Sphere

                      Experience-based knowledge           knowledge

Another sphere of personal experience of specific scientific areas could also be included in
this diagram.

The difficulties of informing policy with scientific evidence were discussed and it was
observed that it might be more appropriate to support a science-based and evidence-backed
policy formulation rather than attempting to cover unified political policy decisions with
fragmentary scientific evidence. Such an approach, perhaps named ‘evidence-bound’ policy
would be able to determine which of a range of potential policies was most appropriate to the
context for which it was required.

Participants also considered the need for public involvement in scientific findings for them to
have any impact. Behavioural patterns need to change in order to implement policy and
involvement at grass roots levels was an effective way of ensuring this happened. Examples
of this cited by participants included Spanish and Welsh farmers who also worked as

Andy Stirling, from SPRU at the University of Sussex, moved the discussion on to the role of
power in public engagement. He indicated that this tends to be a neglected element both in
academic and policy discussion. Giving examples from Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, he
referred to repeated high profile government claims and aspirations to the effect that policy
decisions in areas of scientific and technological controversy should be “pro innovation” and
“based on ‘sound science’”. When contrasted with the typically uncertain and ambiguous
nature of science in policy and the intrinsically open nature of contending technological
pathways, he argued that such claims and aspirations reflect a very ‘closed’ notion of
decision making. The crucial issue is not one of being ‘pro’ or ‘anti’ innovation – but a
question of which innovations and to what ends? In effect, rhetorics of ‘pro-innovation,
science based decision making’ simply assert particular powerful perspectives, essentially
denying a role for contending values and interests in the governance of science and
technology. Policy debates over technology choices such as those between organic farming
and genetic modification or nuclear power and wind power are seriously impoverished by this
kind of language. Indeed, it is ironic that this rhetoric on the part of senior political figures
may actually exacerbate, rather than mitigate, the decline in trust experienced by the
institutions most engaged in these governance processes.

It was agreed that it was necessary to consider the context for engagement and to reflect on
the different rationales behind engagement in order to improve the quality of that
engagement. Three distinct rationales were suggested and discussed:

   1. Normative democratic – this rationale promotes engagement as a self-evidently ‘good
      thing’ in a democratic society, without reference to the ends to which it leads.
   2. Instrumental – this rationale has a specific purpose in mind and applies engagement
      as a way to gain intelligence or some other means to this end.
   3. Substantive – this rationale upholds the value of public engagement as a way to
      inform decisions with salient public values and knowledges.

In order to deliver fully on the latter objective for public engagement in science and
technology policy, it was suggested that public engagement might most effectively be aimed
towards the ‘opening up’ (rather than the ‘closing down’) of discussion on policy choices.
Instead of prescribing a particular course of action, engagement might instead explore a
range of alternatives – perhaps ruling out certain paths but reflecting key issues of detail in
disagreements over others. It was argued that this would provide for more effective co-
existence with established procedures for public accountability and representative
The position of MPs regarding this last point was raised, as not all see their responsibilities
as elected representatives in the same light, some believing that they had been elected with
a mandate to act in the best interests of their constituents, as they perceived them, and
others who believed that their constituents should direct the MP on each issue in order to
make the MP representative of the constituents’ views.

The position of MPs regarding this last point was raised, as not all see their responsibilities
as elected representatives in the same light, some believing that they had been elected with
a mandate to act in the best interests of their constituents, as they perceived them, and
others who believed that their constituents should direct the MP on each issue in order to
make the MP representative of the constituents’ views.

Jane Gregory, from UCL, focused the discussion on the business and industry approach to
science and technology with her presentation concerning the work of the RSA’s Forum for
Citizens, Technology and the Market. She concentrated on the attitudes of business to
public negative attitudes of science and the way in which science and the implications of
scientific research are understood by this wider audience.

The results of the interactions between the Forum and the businesses involved in its work
illustrated that much of the science communication and consultation undertaken by the
government is perceived as being part of a publicity stunt or public relations exercise. They
didn’t see themselves as needing to communicate with the public at large and were only
interested in their own customers. Interestingly, there seemed to be no notion of the
‘potential customer’ amongst the current ‘non-customers’ (who it was suggested might
possibly more elegantly referred to by the term ‘citizen’) and the RSA therefore developed
guidance for science-based businesses on how to engage with the public. This guidance is
available from the RSA at

Participants discussed the nature of consumer involvement in technological innovation, their
appreciation of risks and benefits and how business communicated these to its public. It was
noted that that frequently, it was the risk and not the benefit of technology that was
communicated, as the benefits for business were seen as obvious and understanding of it by
the consumer was assumed. The emphasis has now turned towards the consumer to make
decisions about risk and benefit and there has been a move away from the statutory
regulation that imposes a government agenda onto commercial areas.

The government policy process was considered, with officials from the OST explaining the
short timescale under which they were obliged to operate and the policy processes as they
exist, prompting some participants to pose the question of whether or not the current process
is in need of change. Public consultation is a necessary part of the process, indeed is
required before policy can be officially approved, and is a measure of public acceptability of

The question was raised about the level of information needed by the public in order to
respond meaningfully to a consultation exercise and to provide the feedback necessary to
allow the government to make ‘good’ decisions on behalf of the population. The problems for
consultation of this kind include being sure that the ‘right’ questions are being asked and that
adequate information has been supplied in advance to allow people to provide an informed
response. It is also difficult to determine how views expressed by the public during a
consultation exercise are taken into account when policy is agreed. Indeed, public
consultation where it exists, is frequently a means of ascertaining how best to implement an
agreed policy and is not intended to open up dialogue. Similarly, views that are expressed
are therefore frequently dependent on the role that has been allotted in the debate. The
challenge is to create a means through which opinion can be expressed that does not put
people on the spot or ask merely ‘yes’ and ‘no’ questions of them.

Session Three
Graham Lewis, based in SATSU at the University of York, began the third session with a
discussion of the use of new technologies and people’s approach to them. He suggested that
the public expectation of technology had been raised and that it was difficult to instil a
realistic understanding of the use and development of technology once it had been ‘hyped’. It
was observed that it was difficult for the public to engage in future technological advances
because these are not socially embedded and are specific. It might be easier for the public to
engage in setting objectives for technology to achieve (and thus be problem-orientated)
rather than to ask for reactions to specific and determined uses of technology. Encouraging

people to ask questions themselves at this stage, whilst a skill, is something that is being
taken forward by think tanks such as Demos.

Molly Webb of Demos discussed the ESRC-funded project See through Science, published
in September 2004, which is intended to facilitate upstream engagement by asking different
questions of technological innovation (specifically nanotechnology) to those that have
previously been asked, such as:
    • who will benefit?
    • why do we want it?
    • what don’t we know about it?

In addition to this, the OST Sciencewise project Nanodialogues will be used to test some of
the notions that emerged from the See through Science work. Several of the participants
were familiar with this work, which considered a series of priorities for forming policy in this
area. These priorities were:

   •   Embed upstream engagement in science policy and practice
   •   Reform the governance of the research councils
   •   Develop new cultures of collaboration
   •   Encourage companies to embrace open innovation
   •   ‘NanoNation’ as an opportunity to look at things in a different light

Whilst there are many models for improving dialogue, the practical example of one way of
moving forward with the public engagement agenda was through the use of the ‘consensus
conference’. One such conference, on nanotechnology, had been piloted at the University of
Wisconsin and this was cited as an example of how these conferences might work. This
conference identified recommendations in 4 areas. They were:

   •   R&D
   •   Creation of government bodies
   •   Media and information
   •   Health and Safety

The recommendations were primarily specific identifications of areas where it was felt that
problems were apparent. The solutions, however, tended to be concentrated on the specific
problem identified and the not the substantive point behind it. For example, the participants
wanted to ensure that whistleblowers would be protected, rather than ensuring that
transparency was embedded in processes. What was clear from the conclusions, however,
was that the majority of people felt that they wanted issues to be considered as the
technology develops and not to be bolted on at the end of the process, when it may be less
clear and more difficult to provide this add-on information. Despite some scientists’ fears to
the contrary, the importance of debate for nanotechnology will prevent the recurrence of
some difficulties with implementation of other technologies. The question that emerges at this
point is the timing of such consultation exercises and the role that open debate of this nature
can play in the engagement of the public with science and technology.

It was observed that single events make it very difficult to have any uniform process for
dealing with public engagement. A process that has been more firmly integrated into the
system would allow officials to assimilate views and values and wouldn’t be reactionary and
limited in the way that a one-issue necessarily would be. Such a process would be able to
deliver the justification for policy decisions, and would be open and transparent whilst
retaining the element of reflexivity that is necessary to understand the positions of others.

James Tansey, of the James Martin Institute for Science and Civilization at the University of
Oxford, continued the discussion with a view on the paradoxes of public engagement. Whilst
it was important to attempt the type of upstream engagement that had been discussed, it was
necessary to accept that stakeholders find it difficult to engage before an issue is really
apparent to them. In order to maximise the authenticity of the response from stakeholders,
consultation should become more informal. Government should also accept that the levels of
mis-trust that exist in contemporary society are an indication of the change in relation
between the citizen and the state. It is not possible to retreat away from this change as it is
the natural result of changes in society as a whole, including, but not confined to, power and
related role of the unions in the workplace, women working, and the denationalisation of

One practical suggestion would be to market proto-technology so that moves forward would
be made based on concrete technology and would not feed the problems of uncertainty and
fear. More sophistication in the approach employed at this stage would reduce the element of
unexpected risk and therefore the number of scandals and controversies over perceived
technological risks. One difficulty in this approach is ensuring that the outcomes of
engagement would apply to those who had not been through the process. This is the
paradox of engagement and consultation.

The participants discussed the need for representativeness in consultations. Questions were
asked concerning how to determine the value of representation and whether other
consultations cease to have value if they are not representative. This in turn raised issues of
liability and the need to consider legal frameworks when designing consultations and
documentation. These result in the development of policy which has not necessarily been
compelled by science outcomes, because the latter are frequently not working at the same
pace as the mechanisms of government. As far as science is concerned, the government
has to work with an acceptable level of uncertainty (although a notable exception to this
appears to be climate change policy). Science when used in this way to form policy provides
for the public an easily-digestible justification of that policy and subsumes some of the other,
more complex, factors involved in deciding on policy.

Session Four
Peter Taylor-Gooby of the University of Kent began the final session with a discussion of the
notions of risk and uncertainty by highlighting the fact that similar things about these issues
are being noted across various different disciplines. He argued that the way to connect them
all was through the analysis of their social context. In this way, it becomes clear that whilst
the notion of trust amongst the public is important, it is not always the sole issue of concern.
The lack of trust is indicative of a lack of deference and this suggests that the public is more
engaged with the processes that are occurring. Trust is also dependent on the circumstances
that demand it.

This move from a passive to an active public has resulted in more scepticism and criticism of
government policy. Again the point was made that there are different ‘publics’ and that they
do not all respond in the same way because of different levels of knowledge, different beliefs
and mental models. The challenge is to take all social groups seriously and share their
problems and exchange information. An example of how this might happen in reality was
given as the Financial Services Authority, which moved regulation from the government to
the financial services industry, is now a self-regulating industry that works on behalf of
customers when it is alerted to problems and difficulties and which tries at the same time to
educate the public and make them more financially literate.

This model suggests that a certain level of empowerment must exist amongst the public in
order to be able to manipulate these services to achieve their desired end. This is not
reflected across all social groups, however, illustrating perhaps that whilst some groups can

exercise choice and therefore scepticism, more vulnerable groups are left with no alternative
but the place trust and loyalty in those making decisions for them on their behalf. One
possible solution could be to stop engaging as actively with those groups that are already
engaged and start aiming for the involvement of the more excluded groups.

The participants discussed the relevance of representation for science and society issues. It
was noted that the need to build consensus is not, however, part of the democratic model
used in this country and isn’t part of the way government usually works. Nevertheless, the
position of the state in relation to its citizens is in flux, and the government may have to
consider more radical changes to the current system if it intends to ensure that it meets its
other goals, such as global competitiveness. Participants agreed, however, that democracy
and engagement are not simply related. Not all institutions are democratic, and that doesn’t
stop people from engaging in the work that they do. An example of such an organisation is
Greenpeace, which has ‘supporters’ rather than ‘members’ and does not have a democratic
system of decision-making or policy formulation.

Nick Pidgeon, from the University of East Anglia, continued the discussion of trust and risk
perception in the public by discussing the data collected by MORI for UEA in 2002. He raised
the difficulty of people’s interpretation of questions that they were asked. For example the
question ‘Is nanotechnology a good thing?’ is frequently interpreted as meaning ‘Do you trust
scientists to develop technology appropriately?’. Trust is therefore linked to the connections
people have with issues not the actual questions themselves. Certain professions are thus
viewed as being more trustworthy than others in the public view. Generally speaking, the
more trustworthy certain professions are judged to be, the more distance there is between
them and the government’s political agenda. The survey found that it is not their relation to
technological change that affects the level of trust. Factors affecting trust include:

   •   Competence and care (organisations that act in our best interests)
   •   Social Agreement (organisations which share our values)
   •   Emotion (affect)

One main point was that it is probably incorrect to conceive as trust being an ‘all or nothing’
scenario and rather start to picture it as something that can usefully be mixed with a degree
of criticism. This would not necessarily imply that there was no longer any reliance on the
institutions concerned, and it would be wrong to confuse ‘distrust’ with ‘critical trust’. Critical
trust could help to identify assumptions that are made that are not necessarily correct. It was
noted that this did not necessarily apply to scientific risk alone, but to other issues where
consequences were potentially unpredictable.

Judith Petts, from the University of Birmingham, began her discussion of the findings of
research for the Department of Health on the MMR science-society communication process
with the point that the reification of controversies as if they can all be explained by a lack of
knowledge was not helpfulIn the case of MMR, the problem was that there was a strong
divergence of view between different actors and in the case of the government, the
Department of Health was both a provider of information about and promoter of the MMR
vaccine. Whilst the Department of Health provided multiple forms of communication about
the vaccine, the mass communication process (particularly the leaflets)did not attempt to
discuss the findings of the Wakefield study which had been translated by the media as
linking MMR and autism. Parents were left in the position of having to base their important
decision on multiple information sources, including formal, informal and experiential. . Having
no access to an informed debate about the findings of the Wakefield study, which the
government, as provider of information, could have given, meant that the scientific advice
could not be assessed by the public in layman’s terms. There was limited opportunity for
direct public engagement with the scientific issues. She argued that if the government

wishes to foster a public that is prepared to engage with the scientific issues of the moment,
it has a responsibility to provide a critical look at alternative science and not be afraid to call
scientific work into question.

Discussion of who parents trusted to provide information on MMR had revealed relatively
high levels of trust in the Department of Health, who in this instant were strongly separated in
people’s minds form the ‘government’, particularly Tony Blair. GPs were regarded as one of
the most trustworthy sources of information during the crisis although it was only in the
higher socio-economic groups that GPs were reported to have spent time discussing the
issues directly with parents. However, the research found that Asian mothers (of all socio-
economic groups) did not consider their GPs to be good sources of information with clear
cultural barriers whereby GPs were generally viewed as distant and detached from parents’
concerns. . The different social and cultural backgrounds of receivers of information must
therefore also be considered. In the MMR debate friends and family were partly trusted as
they were perceived to have experiential knowledge and to be empathetic to the real
decision dilemmas which people were facing in the midst of the media reporting which was
challenging the social normalisation of childhood immunisation. However, parents viewed
friends and family as empathetic rather than knowledgeable and therefore not the most
trustworthy source.

Melissa Leach of the Institute of Development Studies argued that the MMR vaccine crisis
indicated that there was a need to engage with the social worlds that shape the way that
people view trust and risk in their lives. This is wider than just the single issue of MMR, or of
any other controversial issue, and concerns broader social discourses that need to be
addressed. The ethnography undertaken in Brighton highlighted the fact that many concerns
about whether or not to take their children for the vaccine were centred on the health and
family history of the child to be vaccinated and not necessarily on scientific advice per se.
The personal context of the parents and their social circumstances also have a role to play in
the determination made by parents about their child’s well being. The notion of ‘trust’ itself
was less of an issue than personal parental responsibility for the consequences of
vaccination or non-vaccination.

The notions of trust and risk are therefore not a particularly helpful way to look at this crisis of
confidence. There was no significant difference in uptake of MMR across socio-economic
boundaries and almost all of the acceptors (94%) and most of the refusers (77%) understood
the severity of measles as a disease.

MMR refusal was strongly associated with

   •   early engagement with the issue
   •   personalised view of immunity
   •   ideas about immune system susceptibility
   •   preference to use homeopathy
   •   lack of government trust over other issues, such as BSE and GMOs

One of the main findings was that the social pressure on parents to conform did not include
an understanding of the need to maintain ‘herd immunity’ in the general population, which is
of concern to the government. Nevertheless, the ethnography demonstrated that the narrow
definitions of risk are inadequate to explain the forms of engagement between science and
the publics. Risk also needs to consider socio-cultural factors and the rationalities that these
produce. Scientific institutions therefore need to introduce processes whereby they can
reflect on the rationalities they employ, their relations to values, power and exclusions and
the models of citizens that they use implicitly. Without doing this, and accepting that a

politicised dialogue must take place with citizens, passive forms of engagement with them
will be reinforced.

The participants discussed the importance in this debate of the need for pluralist knowledges
and input into policy. Risk management in government resulted usually in government
choosing a prescriptive response and not moving from that. This could, in part, be
responsible for some of the problems that government is now experiencing. The participants
felt that the government needed to learn some lessons from the way that crises had been
handled in the past e.g. BSE, Foot and Mouth disease, GM food crops. An institutional
memory is extremely important so that errors in approach are not repeated. It was suggested
that trust was more likely to be engendered through a pluralist approach on the part of the
government rather than being associated with independence from the government. It was
agreed that the current requirement for governmental scientific committees to identify
prescriptive scientific advice on which to base its conclusions is inappropriate. Plural and
conditional advice, rather than fixed outcomes, should be the ambition of such committees.
This would be more in keeping with the advice that scientists can provide, which is rarely, if
ever, prescriptive. It was noted that it should come as a surprise to most scientists that
advice they give to government is translated into fixed outcomes of which they are apparently
the authors. The participants agreed that if scientists were prepared to qualify assertions
made by those ministers who seek to justify policy on the grounds of ‘sound science’, it
would go a long way to ensuring that political agendas were not masked by a
misrepresentation of the scientific advice provided.

The participants felt that there were many avenues that could be explored to facilitate greater
understanding and exchange between government and social scientists. In particular, the
meeting and discussion had thrown up models that would be useful to the development and
revisions of policy and practice. Insights had been gained into the different types of publics
and the way socio-economic groups can work across usual divisions and boundaries on
single issues, the way risk is perceived, and the factors influencing public engagement with
issues of science and technology.

Nevertheless, there remains a difficulty that the concrete use of these insights is a great
challenge that is yet unsolved. On a practical level, it is important to realise that civil servants
change jobs every 18 – 24 months and so do not have the historical memory in each area to
assist them with the assimilation of issues and difficulties or the formulation potential
resolutions. With this is mind, social scientists need to think about the research that is
presented to government and the way in which it is presented in order to maximise the use
that can be made of it given the restrictions that exist in government process.

ESRC Science in Society programme
Public Engagement in Science and Technology workshop
12th May 2005

List of participants

           Name                               Institution                     Telephone                     E-mail
 Judy Britton            Director of Science in Government                       
 Bryony Butland          Horizon Scanning, OST                             0207 2150364
 Jacky Clake             Communications and Information, ESRC              01793 413117
 John Forrester          University of York                                01904 432893
 Michelle Frew           Public Confidence in Government Science           020 7215 5783
 Jane Gregory            UCL                                               020 7679 2094
 Joanne Hodges           Director of Science in Government                       
 Garry Kass              PEST, OST                                         020 7215 3905
 Melissa Leach           Institute of Development Studies                  01273 678685
 Graham Lewis            University of York                                01904 433055
 Rupert Lewis            Horizon Scanning                                  020 7215 6727
 Simon Lock              UCL/OST                                           020 7679 2959
 Andrew Norton           MORI                                              020 7347 3154
 Gemma Penn              Government Social Research Unit, Cabinet Office   020 7276 1798
 Judith Petts            University of Birmingham                          0121 414813
 Nick Pidgeon            University of East Anglia                         01603 593129
 Steve Rayner            University of Oxford                              01865 288938
 Alun Rhydderch          Horizon Scanning, OST                             020 7215 0347
 Jacqui Russell          Council for Science and Technology                020 7215 3973
 Andy Stirling           University of Sussex                              01273 877118
 James Tansey            University of Oxford                              01865 288943
Peter Taylor-Gooby   University of Kent                 01227 827514
Molly Webb           Demos                              020 7367 6312
Saskia Walcott       Head of Communication, ESRC        01793 413149


To top