Why Do Technology and Policy Research Require Public Engagement? - An Essay on Medical Technology and Society

Why do scientific research and policy research require public engagement? I think this can be discussed from two aspects: the limitations of science itself, and how knowledge is shaped within social construction. Scientific research itself has two limitations: one is the limitation of risk control, and the other is the limitation of the research standpoint. In the fifth issue of the journal "Science, Technology, and Medicine in Society", a special article titled "Risk Society, Uncertainty, and the Democratization of Science: The Future of STS" fully explains the limitations of science in a risk society.

On page 3 of the journal, it is mentioned that in order to establish scientific knowledge, we must make certain assumptions and obtain knowledge under experimental control. However, when we try to use this knowledge to describe the much more complex real life, which is filled with thousands of synthetic chemicals, can science handle this situation and truly tell us the actual risks? Obviously not. Yet, science without public participation often ignores these social risks, confidently yielding statistical results that guide related decision-making. However, the resulting harm will directly rebound on the general public who did not participate in the related decisions. Take the US beef incident as an example. On page 23 of the journal, it notes that when science emphasizes its absolute authority and superiority, it conversely gives the public a sense of distrust. The best approach for the public is to allow them to participate in science-related decision-making, understand the possible risks of science in real-world situations, and democratically and openly let the public choose whether to accept it.

Another limitation of science is the limitation of the research standpoint. Due to the recent commercialization of scientific research funding and the potential for conflicts of interest, scientific data may not be as objective as it claims to be. In the paper "A Turning Point for Conflicts of Interest – The Controversy over the National Academy of Sciences," it examines the controversy sparked by tobacco industry-sponsored researchers participating in reviews of carcinogenicity studies, as well as the subsequent regulations on the standpoint of scientific research funding set by the NAS committee. Furthermore, on page 325 of the paper "Constructing rBST in Canada Biotechnology – Instability and the Management of Nature," it mentions that in order to get the use of rBST growth hormone approved, the Monsanto company concealed statistical data regarding the proportion of dairy cows treated with rBST that developed breast cancer. Therefore, only through science with public engagement can people have the opportunity to examine various research standpoints, question the fairness and rationality of the data, and further pursue decisions that are the most truthful and most in line with the public interest.

Beyond the inherent limitations of science, public engagement is required so that knowledge can be reasonably constructed socially and correctly perceived by the public. In "The Birth of Disposable Tableware; An Analysis of the Social Character of Medical Knowledge in Taiwan," we can see that due to policy advocacy, Hepatitis B was socially constructed and incorrectly perceived by the public, which sparked the massive use of disposable tableware. In the previously mentioned paper regarding the "rBST growth hormone," the author also brought up the concept of a "Black-Box," pointing out that without a foundation of public discussion, the public will only perceive the knowledge established by Monsanto that "rBST" is completely safe, without questioning the construction process behind the entirety of that knowledge.

Therefore, public engagement provides not only space for discussion but also a process by which knowledge itself is reasonably constructed by society, preventing it from being solely monopolized and shaped by the government or corporations. In summary, technology research and policy decision-making require public engagement because of the inherent limitations of science, such as risks and research standpoints, and because scientific knowledge itself requires rational social construction. The public needs this right to understand the harmful risks that science cannot control and the research standpoints that may cause bias. Through the process of participation, they can truly understand the knowledge that may have been monopolized by experts and scholars in the past, and consequently make the decisions that best serve their own interests.

This article extends gratitude to Professor Weng Yu-feng from the Institute of Allied Health Sciences, College of Medicine, National Cheng Kung University, for his guidance.