Identifying the Science and Technology Dimensions of Emerging Public Policy Issues through Horizon Scanning

Abstract

Public policy requires public support, which in turn implies a need to enable the public not just to understand policy but also to be engaged in its development. Where complex science and technology issues are involved in policy making, this takes time, so it is important to identify emerging issues of this type and prepare engagement plans. In our horizon scanning exercise, we used a modified Delphi technique [1]. A wide group of people with interests in the science and policy interface (drawn from policy makers, policy adviser, practitioners, the private sector and academics) elicited a long list of emergent policy issues in which science and technology would feature strongly and which would also necessitate public engagement as policies are developed. This was then refined to a short list of top priorities for policy makers. Thirty issues were identified within broad areas of business and technology; energy and environment; government, politics and education; health, healthcare, population and aging; information, communication, infrastructure and transport; and public safety and national security.

Realising transition pathways for a more electric, low-carbon energy system in the United Kingdom: Challenges, insights and opportunities

“…The most controversial of these studies was arguably that concerning the benefits and 'costs' of shale gas fracking in Britain. 34,37 Exploratory drilling in the United Kingdom is at an early stage, with great uncertainty over the scale of the potential shale gas resource. 37 However, such activities are already meeting fierce community resistance.…”

Scientists’ framing of the ocean science–policy interface

“…A relatively orthodox view on the environmental science-policy interface is that there is a need to increase societies' capacity to have open debates about difficult issues -uncertainty, complexity, knowledge gaps -but that values should not be on the table (Parker et al, 2014) because they can cause biases and cost scientists credibility among policy-makers (Rice, 2011). Dietz (2013), however, emphasized the importance of examining (but not advocating) values: ''Our reluctance to debate values may lead us astray.…”

“…For example, some scientists argue that political decisions should be constrained given environmental realities, while others argue that scientific evidence should only inform, not drive, decisions (e.g., Rice, 2011). The combination provides linkages to established theoretical typologies of the science-policy interface (Wittrock, 1991) and also meshes well (Rudd, 2011a) with recent efforts to understand and build science-policy cooperation through participatory horizon scanning and research prioritization exercises (Parker et al, 2014;Sutherland et al, 2011). Hoppe (2009: 239) noted that it was ''surprising how little research has actually been done on the role of scientific expertise in politics and policymaking in which the differences between views of the participants themselves.…”

The contrasting roles of science and technology in environmental challenges

“…At a time when knowledge is being accumulated at unprecedented rates and understanding of the natural world has never been so high (although by no means complete), public scientific literacy is allegedly in a period of serious decline (Rodriguez-Espinosa, 2005), with people becoming less engaged with science and technology (Parker et al, 2014). Public opinion research in Europe and the US suggests that public ignorance and ambivalence undermines public trust in organized science (Allum, Sturgis, Tabourazi, & Brunton-Smith, 2008;Bauer, Allum, & Miller, 2007;Evans & Durant, 1995;Hayes & Tariq, 2000;Miller, 2004).…”