Abstract:
Communication and consultation are now regarded as integral to risk management. Two-way communication or 'dialogue' is promoted to resolve conflict between 'experts' and 'the public' around controversial science and technology risks. Such practices may not capture the full potential of dialogic communication (Buber, 1958; Bohm, 1996). They may function as 'instrumental' dialogue to support scientific risk management procedures, rather than 'transformational' dialogue which might uncover deeper layers of meaning and significance. Advocacy for 'dialogue' suggests a commitment to deliberative public engagement, but may leave unquestioned the dominant framework in which 'risk' is considered.
Responding to increasing tension between 'science and society', the New Zealand government funded a trial of dialogue methods related to genetic engineering (GE). The results indicated that, even with deeply controversial technologies, dialogue can generate a breakthrough in a risk dispute. The spatial components of the discourse - and the management of dialogue within and between different arenas - appear to be significant. Through dialogue in the interpersonal sphere, risk protagonists experienced improved communication. An "issues mapping" approach illustrated the total landscape of the discourse, including the grounds on which protagonists held views in common. Participants identified the normative and strategic dimensions of GE, and technical options that supported shared social objectives. This kind of discourse, however, is largely excluded from the public sphere. The regulatory arena of risk management privileges adversarial rather than dialogic communication.
While dialogue was found to be effective, it was seen as having limited relevance in the regulatory or policy sphere. It is advocated more as a communications tool for individual scientists in their relationships with local communities than as a basis for deliberative engagement in public policy. There are now calls to move dialogue 'upstream' so that public input occurs earlier in the policy cycle (Wilsdon et al, 2004). This may still be problematic if it focuses on the management of 'risks', rather than on normative questions and social discretion in science and technology innovation. Dialogue may not therefore provide a solution to risk conflict, but serve instead to reinforce the underlying power relations evident in risk management.
