Experts
Challenging the received wisdom
We rely on experts more and more. But we trust them less and less.
Illness, Expertise and Charlie Hodgson's floppy foot.
at 9:56am on Monday, 14th February 2005There was some ham-fisted criticism of such policies on the grounds that they somehow undermined the authority of science. But, more interestingly, there were valid questions about how such attempts to engage publics should be implemented. Many people's criticisms seemed to suggest that the top-down programme forced both patients and doctors to behave in a certain, prescribed way. This raises important questions'
Should public engagement experiments be seen as instruments or opportunities? Real public engagement might be more effective if doctors and patients (or scientists and publics) are given the flexibility to engage on their own terms.
Do programmes like the EPP really allow new questions to be asked (about relationships, knowledge, treatment) or are they just attempts at public legitimacy?
Behind the discussions that unfolded, as with any discussions about science and society, lay some firm attachments to na've ideas of what Science and The Public are. Lots of hastily-defrosted arguments about the value-neutrality of science and the failings of the great unwashed.
(I subsequently lost myself on the Barbican's skyways en route to the very excellent Heritage Orchestra. Needless to say, watching them play was more enjoyable than a day spent bemoaning public irrationality).
LOGIN to add comments

Comments