Why science’s contract with society needs citizens as research partners

For hundreds of years, science has operated with a social contract: science develops knowledge that improves the human condition and expands the range of what is possible while society provides public funds, infrastructure, and institutional support. Sustained investments in research have paid dividends to society, in the form of inventions and discoveries, new technologies, and more innovation in general.

Today, this contract is being strained. Governments are increasingly demanding measurable returns from public investments in research while public trust in institutions is reducing. As a result, science can no longer afford to remain an activity conducted largely for society but without society. The next phase of scientific progress must involve citizens as beneficiaries and taxpayers as well as as partners in deciding which questions science should address and how scientific knowledge should be used.

Patrons of science

Curiosity-driven research often produces unexpected discoveries that eventually transform society. Yet governments, as major patrons of science, are increasingly asserting their right to determine where research money should go. There are legitimate reasons for this. Governments are obligated to resolve national priorities because public resources are finite. But governments misstep when their policy-driven management becomes intrusive.

When funding decisions are mainly influenced by short-term political priorities or economic returns, research areas that are not easily measurable, such as parts of the social sciences, humanities, climate research, and fundamental science, become vulnerable to being seen — unjustifiably — as producing too little bang for the buck. Yes, science must serve society, but science also works better when it retains the intellectual freedom required to challenge prevailing assumptions and explore questions whose value may not be immediately apparent.

Governments, as the patrons, are entitled to establish broad priorities and expectations, but they should not use science policy as an excuse to politically micromanage research. But the answer is also not to isolate science further from society. Instead, the answer is in the middle: scientists must build a broader constituency for science by bringing society into the research process.

To achieve this, scientists need compelling narratives about why research matters, and allies across communities, civil society, industry, education, and public institutions.

What citizens know

Inviting citizens into research does not mean replacing scientific expertise with popular opinion. A scientist trained in epidemiology knows considerably more about disease transmission than the average citizen. A climate scientist understands atmospheric processes in ways that a farmer may not. However, the reverse is also true. A farmer may possess knowledge about changing soil behaviour and crop resilience that a scientist in a laboratory may not. A forest-dwelling community may possess detailed knowledge of medicinal plants, forests, and biodiversity that is absent in formal databases.