Communicating to and engaging with the public in regulatory science[Link]

Abstract

This paper presents selected highlights from the 'Engaging with society' session of EFSA's third Scientific Conference 'Science, Food and Society' (Parma, Italy, 18-21 September 2018). The social dimension for scientific advisory bodies largely concerns science communication and public engagement. The political, economic and technological transformation of contemporary societies is challenging conventional structures and approaches in these areas. The disintermediation of communication and the proliferation of misinformation, it is argued, herald the onset of the post-truth society. A better understanding of the way individuals consume information today has led to the development of tools to guide mediators such as journalists and communication specialists in countering these trends. Public engagement can reinforce confidence in regulatory bodies and potentially contribute to the quality of the scientific process. Scientific advisory bodies in Europe have created strategies and mechanisms to engage the public that are designed to increase transparency and representativeness. To be effective, several engagement mechanisms are needed, although factors such as resource constraints, institutional culture and public/ stakeholder attitudes may limit their development. In conclusion, a more vigorous role for social research is needed to place scientific risk assessment within broader socio-economic and political contexts. Social science expertise can help to define more impactful public information strategies and to explore the potential opportunities that engaged stakeholders and citizens can make to sustain and strengthen regulatory science.

Conducting fit‐for‐purpose food safety risk assessments

“…As discussed further in the subsequent sections, several kinds of engagement efforts have been implemented in the past and could prove useful in the future to uncover value‐laden judgements that merit further scrutiny in the practices of institutions like EFSA (Patel, ; Smith et al., ). First, some scholars have experimented with the approach of ‘embedding’ a social scientist or humanist in a scientific laboratory for a period of time in order to help identify and explore background assumptions or other judgements (Schuurbiers and Fisher, ).…”

“…Efforts to address current and future communication challenges on science and society must first recognise the irrefutable evidence that the landscape of communication has changed and will continue to change, with implications at the individual, group, societal and global levels (Bucchi, ; Smith et al., ; Zollo, ). The internet and the rise of social media have opened a veritable Pandora's box, providing unparalleled access to thousands of sources of information about any given topic.…”

“…Actions to communicate more effectively should consider the way citizens form opinions and consume public information (Smith et al., ). Moreover, such actions should be implemented with a view of increasing accountability and trustworthiness.…”

“…So far, risk communication has typically focused on communicating facts instead of values as a one‐way process to deliver information, attempting to convince audiences of the legitimacy and authority of an expert‐informed assessment. However, it has been argued that the public should not be seen as passive recipients of scientific advice, but rather as active participants (Patel, ; Smith et al., ). Listening to the problems faced by the public can help scientists and risk assessors to frame an issue in a way that is relevant to the people it affects and provide useful evidence and scientific advice.…”

Editorial: Special Issue on EFSA's third Scientific Conference ‘Science, Food, Society’

“…In order to make effective use of new scientific approaches and advances, engagement between experts and other stakeholders is needed (Smith et al., ). As more science is pushed in ‘real time’ into the public domain without being filtered by professional mediators, greater responsibilities fall on researchers, institutions, and the users of information to develop productive forms of communication (Bucchi, ).…”