By This entry was posted on Thursday, August 5th, 2010 at 3:15 pm and is filed under Environmental Governance. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
Since this blog was launched earlier this year, several posts have suggested that accountability is becoming a central area of concern for scientists and indeed all who are involved in generating research. The most obvious example of this was in the ‘climategate’ scandal whereby email conversations involving staff at the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia were leaked on to the internet. As was summarised in my previous blog posting, last week’s Muir Report revealed troubling systematic accountability failings at the institution. Although the science of climate change stills stands and it is difficult to tally how much damage this specific affair has done to the credibility of scientific inquiry, it is clear that the public are no longer willing to place unconditional trust in researchers.
In the case of research in science and technology, a recent Eurobarometer survey supports this point. Although the survey suggests that people have generally remained positive about the role of science and technology research in society, there are some signs of distrust amongst respondents and many feel that researchers could do more to engage with the wider public.
Amongst the survey’s findings, it is concluded that few people felt ‘very well informed’ and many ‘feel that scientists should communicate the message about science but that they are not very efficient in doing so’. There is a wary view of the market’s involvement in financing research with 58% agreeing ‘We can no longer trust scientists to tell the truth about controversial scientific and technological issues because they depend more and more on money from industry’. Perhaps most alarming was the view that 53% of European respondents agree with the statement that, through their knowledge, scientists ‘have a power that makes them dangerous’.
On the whole the survey has both negative and positive implications for scientific researchers insofar as the public appear to believe scientists have room for improving their accountability but by large still hold the view that scientists can play a positive role to play in providing innovative solutions for society. Although the Eurobarometer survey and the ‘climategate’ affair both focus on scientific research, it is likely that many non-scientific researchers face very similar accountability strains given their role in influencing such matters as public policy. One question does arise from these conclusions: how do scientific and other researchers begin to address some of these issues of accountability?
There are, of course, no easy answers to this question. Accountability is a complex notion, especially in the field of research. For us at the One World Trust accountability can be taken to mean recognising and engaging with one’s stakeholders, providing information about finance and other activities, and reflecting upon one’s actions. However, recognising requirements of accountability are one thing, implementing positive change can for many be a daunting prospect. The One World Trust is currently involved in a project that aims to provide practical solutions for policy-relevant research organisations seeking to improve their accountability. In late-August 2010 we will be launching an online resource of accountability tools which will help guide research organisations though the process of implementing accountability mechanisms into their daily activities and governance. Information and news relating to the launch of the online resource will be mentioned on this blog over the coming weeks, or if you have any specific queries, Brendan Whitty will be more than happy to help.
Tags: "Public Trust", Accountability, APRO, Citizens, Climate Change, knowledge Production, research accountability, science
