All in the mind
The same thinking processes that help you cope with everyday life prejudice your judgements in other areas. Consider the psychology of decision making.
A look at the principles which guide the scientific decision-making process
Scientific knowledge has the potential to affect the course of human civilisation and the environment within which we live. It is not the only factor influencing such change, but it can be a profoundly important one. It is precisely because scientific knowledge can make a difference to so many people’s lives that decision-making related to scientific issues is often the subject of considerable negotiation and contest. Decisions about whether to allow the commercial planting of novel genetically modified organisms in the UK or to reduce global carbon emissions are important precisely because they matter; they have the potential to change the way we live.
Of course, not every decision made about a scientific issue will have such profound implications. Choosing whether or not to eat beef, for example, is an individual decision, but one that could be informed by scientific information about BSE and vCJD. If you consider the results of all those individual decisions together, however, as industry, local councils, regional authorities, national governments and international and global bodies often do, then you realise that individual decisions about science-related issues have the potential to directly or indirectly influence decisions made at these different levels through the development of policy. In this way, decision-making about science occurs at a number of different levels, involving a range of individuals, institutions and organisations.
Who are the decision-makers?
There are a large number of decision-makers engaged in developing policy at the regional, national, international and global levels, and still others who make decisions at the individual and local levels. These decision-makers include:
- scientists and scientific institutions, for example scientific representatives from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), scientists working on international and nationally based projects, NASA, UK research councils and the Royal Society
- medical professionals, including those working for the World Health Organisation (WHO), general practitioners (GPs), pathologists and vets
- media professionals, for example, journalists, editors and public relations officers
- non-governmental organisations (NGOs), such as Greenpeace, and charities such as the Wellcome Trust
- representatives from industry, for example, multinational pharmaceutical companies, the biotechnology industry, local farmers and ‘green’ businesses promoting sustainability
- politicians and officials, for example, political representatives from the IPCC, the European Parliament, the UK Science Minister, Chief Medical Officer and Chief Scientific Adviser, and local councillors
- other professionals and experts, such as patent lawyers, religious leaders, ethicists, and social scientists studying the relationship between science and the public
- regulatory bodies, such as the Food Standards Agency (FSA) and the Human Fertilization and Embryology Authority
- patients and their families, including those suffering from vCJD in the UK and Bangladeshi citizens suffering from arsenic poisoning
- citizens/consumers who do not fall into any of the categories above
next >
Page 1 of 2
Content last updated: 31/08/2005 For this article, he drew upon the work put together by the S250 course team, in particular Richard Holliman.
About our expert
Jeff Thomas is a senior lecturer in the Faculty of Science and is a biologist by training and temperament. As a founder member of the Centre for Science Education, he developed an interest in science communication and the public understanding of science. For the S250 Science in Context course, he is writing material on genetic manipulation and on how nanotechnology relates to biological systems. Bookmark with:
Comments
