Societal dialogue needs more than public engagement

The term ‘dialogue’ has become an important part of ‘science and society’ discourse during the past decade. As such, statements like the following have become integral to reports and activities at the interface of science and society: “The acquisition of a basic grounding in science and technology by the European public and a regular flow of information to the public from experts are not in themselves enough to enable people to form an opinion. A true dialogue must therefore be instituted between science and society” (European Commission, 2002). ‘Dialogue’ is now a commonly used term in policy papers and social science articles to describe ‘multi‐way’ communication between science as an academic activity and society as the larger context of science and as its potential beneficiary. Public dialogue is supposed to contribute to scientific and technological developments that take into account societal concerns, values, priorities and institutions—which social scientists have termed ‘socially robust knowledge’ (Nowotny et al , 2001). This requires societal actors to assess the pros and cons of technological and scientific developments, as well as scientific experts who are able to connect the laboratory to the world outside.Dialogue is about ‘publics’ and experts, who learn both from and with one another about where scientific research can, will and should go. However, dialogue is often presented as public engagement with an emphasis on the involvement of citizens giving input for policy or decision making (Davies et al, 2008). As initiators and organizers of online discussions with publics and experts on genomics, we have learned that public engagement is just one of the challenges of generating a dialogue—and not even the most difficult one. Another requirement is to engage experts. Ultimately, generating a dialogue, in practice, is about both publics and experts articulating the object of discussion.As part of a …