Comments on: Citizen Scientists: If Congress builds it, will you come?

By: “Why I Love Citizen Scientists” | Science Cheerleader

“Why I Love Citizen Scientists” | Science Cheerleader — Sun, 08 Mar 2009 19:42:02 +0000

[...] sent in this first-person account of what it’s like to work with Citizen Scientists and how he got hooked on rivers. From [...]

By: BioBlitz! Mark your calendars now: May 15 in Chicago. | Science Cheerleader

BioBlitz! Mark your calendars now: May 15 in Chicago. | Science Cheerleader — Tue, 10 Feb 2009 13:44:56 +0000

[...] Citizen Scientists! Here’s another terrific activity for our Project Finder. BioBlitz is a 24-hour event in [...]

By: Top 8 Science Policy Stories of 2008 | Science Cheerleader

Top 8 Science Policy Stories of 2008 | Science Cheerleader — Tue, 23 Dec 2008 23:27:23 +0000

[...] deliver news of relevance to folks like us. Oh, and because they published my articles on citizen scientists and the reopening of the Office of Technology [...]

By: Shining a light on the Philadelphia 76ers Dark Ages. | Science Cheerleader

Shining a light on the Philadelphia 76ers Dark Ages. | Science Cheerleader — Mon, 18 Aug 2008 16:16:01 +0000

[...] is working to open doors so we can start having a say in major science policy issues. See here and here. For decades, calls to include the public in science policy decisions have been wasted on elitist [...]

By: Darlene

Darlene — Fri, 25 Jul 2008 10:11:36 +0000

Thanks for sharing your thoughts, Bill. (Hey, this IS public science! ) Couple of questions: help me understand why something like a consensus conference would smother public participation in science? I agree that science research needs to be handled exclusively by “the experts,” but the science policies set forth around them should include “good sociology” as you put it (I like that!). What if I had said something like “for every opportunity a lobbyist has to influence science policy decisions, there should be an equal opportunity given to an ‘average’ citizen.” Why should scientists, Congress and lobbyist determine what is best for you and for me on the most critical issues? I’m not saying we should butt our noses in to every legislative issue but there are BIG ones that warrant more inclusion. An OTA could help determine what those issues are and how best to include citizens in meaningful dialogue. I’m not solely advocating consensus-driven approaches. That may be one approach to a particular type of science policy issue. Frankly, if our wonderful and incredibly fragmented country were able to reach a consensus on anything, I’d begin to wonder if we were all getting a little too much prozac in our drinking water! Do you mind if I ask you if you are a scientist or academic? I ask because, in general, your response is fairly consistent with those fields. And thanks again for posting this, Bill!

By: Darlene

Darlene — Fri, 25 Jul 2008 10:11:00 +0000

By: Bill Lands

Bill Lands — Fri, 25 Jul 2008 02:48:59 +0000

You cite OTA ideas in the context of following the thoughts of the LOKA program in Denmark. That seems a sure way to smother public participation in science – - and public participation in progress.

The LOKA website favors ‘consensus conferences’. It says, “The purpose of focusing on points of agreement is not to create or force a consensus, but to instead reveal what points of agreement emerge after everday folks have had an opportunity to learn and deliberate together. The philosophy of the consensus conference is that the consensus report should be a sound indicator of what technological changes are OK with society, because it reflects points of agreement freely determined by individuals who have deliberated together, and whose primary concern is the general good. Good sociology (which really depend on empathy and consensus), but not good science – (which does not really depend on consensus).

Keep on cheerleading for public science – - not political science!

By: Bill Lands

Bill Lands — Fri, 25 Jul 2008 02:48:00 +0000

Keep on cheerleading for public science – - not political science!

By: Mr. Shad Goes To Washington | Science Cheerleader

Mr. Shad Goes To Washington | Science Cheerleader — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 23:08:04 +0000

[...] Can you believe Congress shut this office down 15 years ago? It was their only source of nonpartisan, science policy advice and they axed it. Between global warming, stem cell research, water shortages, health care issues and other big science challenges facing Congress today, I’d say they need the OTA now more than ever. More here and here [...]

By: Bart L

Bart L — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 00:52:50 +0000

As I note on my blog (using NASA as an example), it’s not just a matter of doing exciting, complicated things. Admittedly, the U.S. population could go a long way toward educating itself about scientific issues, BUT the scientific and technical communities need to do a better job of explaining what they’re doing and of doing so in an engaging, non-condescending way.

The science community might frown on “science popularizers” like Carl Sagan or Bill Nye the Science Guy, but heck, at least they have tried to get the public engaged.

Part of the problem is cultural, I think. “There’s no room for excitement in engineering. If you’ve got excitement, it’s because something’s gone wrong on the job!” Well, maybe. But there’s also the thrill of discovering, designing, or accomplishing great and mysterious things. How the heck else do you explain the success of forensic science, for gosh sakes? We’ve got three CSIs, “Bones,” and other programs featuring crime scene investigations and getting kids interested in science. That isn’t an accident. Other disciplines, such as the space program, could benefit from such dramas. And if more people are engaged by such dramas, they just might pay some more attention to “the real thing.”