Opinion response exercise

Should the public be involved in making science policies?

 This opinion response survey will be due next Thursday (December 12) by classtime. This is the last required opinion response!

 Please read through the directions first before starting to read the opinions (if you haven't already in past assignments). Please remember that your "critique" should be formatted in your email as follows (but replace the "#" symbol with actual numbers – do not include a "#" symbol in your answers).

best,#,#,#

new idea,#,#,#

If your name begins with the letters A to D, please read responses 1 to 14

If your name begins with the letters E to K, please read responses 15 to 28

If your name begins with the letters L to N, please read responses 29 to 42

If your name begins with the letters O to Z, please read responses 43 to 56

The order of the opinions is generally according to the order in which they were received.

You are welcome, of course, to read responses outside your own set if you have time and interest.

1. I don't agree that the public should be involved in making science policies because they are to ignorant of what goes on in science. Maybe 20 percent of the population has a bachelors degree so what could they possible contribute to policies but opinion that could be more detrimental than helpful. The public rarely works in majorities so if the public were involved they would disagree with issues that were against their norms and activist group would be having the most impact because they are the only ones who have a slight sense of what's going on.

2. Concerning the public in making science policies I feel is a neccessary involvement. The expansion of science literacy, ability and skills, and an appreciation of ethical values, are needed to improve public decision-making on science issues. Professionals should be trained to increase public awareness of science. Also the information presented to the public should be provided through easily understandable form that are conductive to the development of the local communities. I also feel that science museums/centers play an important role in public education in science.

3. No, I do not think that the involvement of the public in making scientific decisions would be beneficial. I think that such decisions should be reserved for those who are adequately informed on all of the consequences of different actions. I do not think that the majority of the general public would be knowledgable enough to make a worthy contribution. I think that only the people directly involved in the formation of policies; the scientific community, governments, etc, should be involved in making the decisions.

4. I think that it would be hard for the public to be involved in making scientific policies. They wouldn't have all of the information and they are not as experienced in the field to make a good decision as a scientist is. The public could give views on it that scientists may not realize could effect them and then consider the views. Overall, though, scientists should have the majority say because they are the ones that have the best knowledge of the situaiton.

5. I think that scientist should be the main contributors in deciding scientfic policies, however I also thinks that the public should be aware. Scientist should not disregard what the public thinks about such policies, however the public obviously wouldn't have as much knowledge to make an educated decision, as the scientist would. As a Politics major it pains me to say that I don't think that politicians should have a big say in such policies. Usually politicians have alterenative motives for deciding the way they do. Such as endorsements and funds to their campaigns from large corporations. I feel that they would not be deciding what was best for the public, but what was best for themselves. When I write about this I think of the debate over ANWAR and the scientist (environmentalist and geologists) views over the situation saying that it isn't worth destroying a habitat over, however politicians are saying to go ahead and drill there. I think that scientist should and make an educated and infomed decision on scientific policies by using their knowledge/research and also getting public feedback.

6. I think that the public should have a part in making science policies. The policies that effect the public should have some part open to public discussion and the public should have a say in what happens. With many science discoveries, there are people who oppose the ethics of what has been discovered, such as cloning. The science community should listen to different opinions. Policies should be made in respect to the public, because most science policies directly effect the public.

7. I think the public should be allowed to decide where their money goes. The science foundations should be concerned with what the general public wants to know if we are paying for their programs. If we want to go to mars, we should be allowed to put our money towards that project. We should also have the right to stop our money from funding projects that we do not want.

If there is money going towards cloning and the general public does not want this to continue, we should be allowed to have a say in whether or not our money goes towards it.

8. In a sense the public does have some say in major scientific events and forms of research. It is simply through a third party, political officials. Each year the government allocates funding to NASA and other research institutions creating the budget for projects and research. In addition, the government finally decides ethical issues. An example of this is the laws against human cloning here in the U.S. If individuals feel very strongly about a particular issue, they can contact their local government official in hopes that their opinions will be heard. In my perspective any more influence from the public would be chaotic and detrimental to the scientific community for two simple reasons. The first reason is that so many individuals have different views about so many issues and are influenced by outside sources, no set agreement would occur. The final reason is that the general public lacks the knowledge to make a sound scientific decision in many cases.

9. I don't think the public should have a great deal weight when it comes to scientific decisions. Polling the public for their opinions in order to take the responses into consideration is a good idea, however, the public as a whole is uniformed, especially when it comes to issues of science. People do not have enough information on such issues as the space program to make informed and quality decisions, and allowing them to influence decision making could be detrimental to the positive intentions of scientists when asking the public to respond. In addition, the public is primarily informed of scientific discoveries and decisions through the media, which often comes with a bias. Thus the people's decision is inherently biased based on the way the information is reported. There are too many variables that could do more harm than good in allowing the public to influence scientific decisions.

10. I do believe that the public should have some say in the making of science policies. I do not believe though that the general public should be in charge of the decisions. I believe that a group of people from the general public should be educated on the matter that is being discussed and than allowed to have a say in it. I think that if it was left up to the general public only the extremely interesting things in science would be studied or discussed, such as dinosaurs and mammoths. These things are interesting but make up a very small section to science. In conclusion I think that the public should be informed but the learned people should have a final decision.

11. I do not think that the public shoudl be able to decide science policies, since they could be persuaded by one of the two sides and ultimatly decide on something terrible. I also believe that the public does not have enough information to decide on policies and we should leave that up to someone else who knows what the consequences are.

12. Public involvement in creating science policies has occurred since the late 1960s and the early 1970s. The Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Defense have created citizen advisory committees to assist these governmental agencies with policies regarding science.

These committees helped to contribute to the creation of the National Environmental Policy Act and the Coastal Zone Management. I believe that it is essential for continued involvement from citizens in the regions in which the policy may affect. Policy makers must understand what impacts legislation will have on the environment in which these citizens live. Through direct citizen involvement, interest groups, and referendas, these individuals will be able to voice their opinions to legislators in a way of influencing policies regarding science and the environment.

13. I believe that the public should be involved in making science policies.

They should be able to vote on the different issues that arise but should not have the final say. The researchers are the ones that know the most about the different issues and they are the ones carrying out the acts. They should be the ones that have the majority of the vote. Since this is a democratic government and people have the right to vote, I believe that they should have the right to vote on these issues as well. But since they may not know much about the National Science Foundation or the space program, they should not have the final word. The publics opinion, or the results of the vote should be taken into consideration when makeing their final decision as to investing money into the space program or determing what the National Science Foundation should focus on.

14. Just as or government works, we as residents of this country are able to help make decisions concerning how we want our lives to be run by being able to vote during elections. Even though we are not heads of the government ourselves, we do still have the right to have a say in big decisions. This is how it should be with the public being able to be involved in making scientific policies. Some ideas scientists have can be pretty riskiy and could have a bad effect on everything surrounding us. It is with esperiments such as these that the public should have a say in what happens. For instance, if a dinosaur was cloned, even if it was kept away from the public, it could carry a deadly disease that could possibly break into an epidemic, you never know. But overall, i do beleive that the public should be somewhat involved in what policies and decisions scientists make no matter how extreme the policy may be.

15. In some cases I think that the public might know best. I feel that sometimes scientists may make decisions based on what is best for them and their research. In most cases however, the public may not be educated enough to make decisions regarding public policies. In those cases, the policies may be unsoundly created, leading to problems.

All in all, scientists making decisions seems to be the best solution as long as they make their decisions for the right reasons. If the public has an objection to these policies, it is always possible to object, and see that it is changed.

16. The public should be involved in making science policies to an extent.

If the research being done in any way put the public at harm, then yes, they have a right to say something about that. On the other hand, if the public simply does not agree with it, then I see no reason why they should have any power in deciding the policies that could lead to new and great discoveries. Scientists most likely will not partake in any activities that will put the public in any sort of danger. Even if they do, they will be sure to re-locate to a new area where that testing will be safe and out of harms way. So in the end, I feel that the actual scientists should have the final say in making their science policies, as long are they do not affect the public in any way.

17. The public should be involved in making science policies to help make sure that taxpayers’ dollars are being spent on projects that benefit the public. Increased public involvement in the trends of scientific research and discovery would have prevented cases such as the case of Ronald Hutchinson. Hutchinson was given federal money to research why animals clench their teeth and had published those articles in scientific publications using those funds. Wasteful dispersion of tax money would be more stringently monitored if the public took a more active role in supervising the actions of scientists and in fully understanding their research intentions. This increased awareness would not only decrease wasteful spending, but also encourage serious scientific research and work that would benefit society as a whole.

18. When it comes to deciding what should be a science policy it should be the decision of the scientist. It would be ideal for the public to have knowledge of the policy and to be allowed some input, but they’re opinions should not influence the thoughts of the scientists. Professionals that have advanced knowledge and experience with whatever is being considered for the policy are the ones who should have a say in what the final decision is.

However there is nothing wrong with the public being given the option of stating their opinions.

19. I don't think that the public should have a say involving scientific policies because the public doesn't necessarily know anything about current scientific issues. I know that sometimes I want to be really involved with a certain topic and make some sort of legilative action, but unless I, or the public, am properlly educated about the subject than I should have no say on the matter. I think that scientific policies should be left to the experts.

20. The public should not be involved in making science policies. The average citizen does not have enough knowledge about scientific topics to make decisions. That is why we have scientists. It is the same reason we have other professions - to specialize. The public should let scientists make scientific policies and stick to whatever is they do best.

21. Certainly the public should be informed on what type of research national scientific research institutes are performing. However, I do not believe that the public really has a right to control exactly what research is done. First of all, scientists have been educated in many different areas and have training that the average citizen does not have. Most likely a trained professional is not going to waste his or her time doing research on something irrelevant. Chances are that the untrained public might want a topic looked into that is an old issue and has no new scientific data or is just not logical to explore, since they are unknowledgeable in this type of field work. If institutes were forced to listen to the public’s wishes, a lot of time and money would be wasted. Also, if an institute is privately funded, then they should have the right to do what ever they wish regarding research. If the institute is publicly funded, by the national government, then perhaps more public input might be listened to. Nevertheless, I still do not feel that the research institute should be forced to comply.

22. I do not believe the public should be directly involved in distribution of funds. Indirectly if a voter feels strongly about a certain program or agency they should use their voting power to vote into office someone who feels the same way they do. What scientist are researching at the time might seem futile and useless to uninformed voters who are out to save money on taxes but their might be amazing benefits down the line. (i.e. without the space program personal computers would have taken considerably longer to develop)

23. No, the public shouldn't be involved in deciding on what scientific foundations research except to possibly curtail dangerous or politically/religiously debatable subjects. As for the government, we already have a hand in choosing subjects by electing the officials who have some control over research choices. As for private institutions, they have there own agendas insode the law. So no, the public shouldn't be allowed to dictate research topics.

24. The public should be involved in making science policies. I think people that live somewhere should have a say in what goes on, science policies included. This may not necessarily mean that what the people believe or what they want will be the way it is, but I think that their opinions should count and would help in making decisions. After all, the actions will probably end up affecting the public, so why not let them have a say?

25. Public opinion should be taken into consideration when science policices are being made, but they should not be directly involved.

Scientists and those in surrounding fields should the ones with the total responsibility of making these policies. These are the people that are the most trained in their realated fields and are thus best suited to make important decesions concerning such things.

26. I think the public should not have a say in making science policies.

Who is to say that any John Doe would have the right opinion that would be the best choice when dealing with science. These policies should be made by people who know what they are talking about. When dealing with a subject of this importance we must not trust the public.

27.The public should be involved in some science policy decisions, if the policy is something that will affect them in some way. If it is just something in the science world that nobody really knows or cares about, then naturally they do not need to get involved. Of course, it might not be wise for the public to get involved in making any science policy because most people don't really understand much about even the things they do care about, like stem cell research. Lots of people are against it when they don't even know how it works. They get more emotionally involved. They would most likely make a decision different from that of a scientist. This could either be a good thing or a bad thing, depending on what the policy is about.

28. The issue of giving the public a say in science spending policies is a tricky one. I belive that they shouldn't have the final say but their opinion should be talken into consideration, mainly because it is the public tax money that is being spent. But they shouldn't have to much say because much of the public is uneducated or biase towards one cause or another like religious fanatics or rich people. But it is our government and they should do what we want them to (although they often don't).

So i think i would be a good idea if we could vote on these issues and if the public is totally against it then it should not be done in a case like cloneing humans.(but the truth is most people wouldn't vote anyway). in addition lots of information on the subject should be made widely available.

29. I feel that the public should be involved in making science policies because the people are the one's affected by these decisions. For example, if cloning was the issue being decided on, I definitely feel that almost everyone would want to voice their opinions on the subject. Cloning is a strongly talked about issue and if the deciding factors of this issue were discussed only through scientists, people would feel that they have no control and riots and protests would occur. It is important that people have control in deciding on the policies for such issues involving science because without this control, science could eventually become so over-bearring that it could be hard to control once it has reached a point of no control.

30. I think the public should have a say in what the scientists decide are important research policies because otherwise they will continue to make discoveries and determine what is newsworthy. Scientists along with the media deem what is important to the public, and this can present a problem because some things may be more improtant to one group of individuals then another. The public must have a say in policy because it could be dangerous to allow only scientists access to certain discoveries because they may provide protection to only themselves if something went wrong. An example would be a disease outbreak that scientists created and lost control of by accident and then because they formed the policy they could deny involvement and avoid punishment which would not happen if society is involved in the writing of scientific policies. Another example of why it is important to know the actions and policies of scientists is because they could keep secrets from the general public and that would not be good, jsut imagine the cloning of the first baby being keep hidden and private from society. This is why scientific reasearch policies must by controlled and talked about with the public.

31. I believe that the public should be involved in the making of science policies, but the public opinion should not be the leading decision maker. The science community should get a general idea of what the public’s opinion is about the issue, and take this into consideration when making policies. If the public was allowed too much decisions power, good scientific ideas could be ignored due to the public not wanting to spend money or some other reason. Therefore, the public’s power should be that of telling the scientific community what their ideas and concerns are, but not have much power in the decision making process.

32. The public should have a say in making new science policies. Every dicision that's made has an effect on the general public, so we should be able to help decide on new policies. What if it was decided that your land was to be the site of a new national park and you were going to be forced to move? That would be an issue that would effect you directly, and you'd definitely want a say in the desicion making process. Of course there are situations that are much less extreme, but deserve opinions from the general public none-the-less. This is a country founded on the input of the public and that's the way it should stay no matter what the issue.

33. Yes, I think that the public should be involved in making science policies. Have the time its the public's money thats going towards the fundimg of those policies. They should at least have a say in where the money is going. Also, the government doesn't have trust in the public. If they gave the public a chance to have a say, they could probably make the most logical decision.

34. I do not think that the public should be involved in making large scientific decisions. This is mainly because many people are uneducated about a lot of the issues in this field. Also who would decide what group of people would be involved? They are called scientists for a reason and we should trust that they are using our funds reasonably. If someone in the public wishes to have a say I think that they will find ways to become involved in the particular issue they wish to debate or work towards.

35. This is a tough topic. Many times the public has the property in which scientific discoveries are found. Although this is a possibility, I think that the public should not be involved in making scientific policies. In the case of Sue the T. Rex fossil, the public greatly influenced where this fossil collection went. When the public became involved the specimen went from a fantastic scientific discovery to a prize for the bidder with the fattest wallet. This diminished the research ability of paleontologists and Sue had the potential to be one of the biggest T. Rex discoveries ever to be made with an over 90% completion status. This fossil came into jeopardy when it was put in a public auction. If it went into the hands of a private investor, the scientific information that was obtained would have never been found.

36. Science exists for the benefit of society, which indicates that the public is an imperative force that should guide decisions in the scientific field. Scientific policies guide the direction and process of scientific research, and the public should have a say as to what rules our nation stands behind. If the public has no control over scientific policies, how can science benefit the society to the fullest extent? Only through a collaboration of scientific experts and the general public can scientific policies be put to a useful effect that will result in intellectual and societal gain.

37. I do think that the public should be aware of these decisions and should have some part of the process, but how can the right decisions be made by lay people that don't understand the issues? I think the decisions should be made from the decision of the science community paired with a judicial review of the policy and a public opinion poll.

One group of people should not have all the control, not the public or the science community.

38. Policy making should not be in the hands of the public. Althouhg it would be nice to have some input from the people these thigns may effect, it would not be practical. The public does not have the knowledge to make sound decisions on science policies. They would be pushed by emotions rather than knowledge and reasoning. This would create a constant campiagn for policys and ultimatly reslt in policys that are scientifically flawed.

39. I don't think the public should be involved in science policies as a normal process. But i think they should get involved if popular public sentiment feels that it is not in their best interest if a certain policy goes through. Most people in the public are not scientists, so many things they would not understand on a daily basis, and it would not be a productive situation if all the public had a say in all policy. And in a lot of ways science policy extends to subjects that involve private businesses and corporations, and the public can't get involved legally with the decisions made corporations as it stands today. Most policies dealing with private and goverment domainms should be overseen by the people who we vote to represent us. Ultimately the government should be predominatly responsible for scientific policy. But this also is misconstrude because c!

orporations have much influence government decisions tthrough lobbying and general political connections(ie George Bush, Dick Cheney for starters). As idealistic as it sounds, scientists should decide on their own discretion what is the healthiest and most sound choice to benfefit public interest. And although the public should not be involved in scientific policy making decisions, they should feel openly obliged to make themselves involved if their livelihood is at stake. <

40. The public should not be involved when it comes to making decisions about science. The reason is simply because the public is not going to be the most knowledgable group in regards to knowing what will be best.

If I were dying, and needed surgery, I would not look to regular ordinary Joe, or Jane to perform the surgery, I would seek an expert. So when decisions need to be made about science, experts should be consulted, not the public.

41. Some would argue that the general public is not educated enough in scientific matters to really be involved in the making of science policies. However, I believe that when it comes to questions such as whether or not government money is being spent on scientific research the public should be involved in making such descisions, as it may involve the use of tax payer money. I also beleive that the public should be involved in making scientific policies on things such as whether or not it is legal to study cloning. There are many people who have very strong beliefs concerning such studies and just because they are not scientists does not mean that they are not educated enough to have an opinion on the matter. Furthermore, those who are not personally involved in such research may be capable of being more objective as to the possible consequences of such studies.

42. I think that the public should have some say in to where the money goes because they are the ones paying for everything that is being researched. But I also think that the public does not need to know everthing that is going on in science research because there will always be controversies about what is going on.

43. This is a very double sided question. On one hand there are the scientists who know thier subject best, but they are also the most passionate about thier field as well and would be likely to want the most money put into thier own personal projects. The general public needs to be taken into account because if the majority is against certain scientific research they should have a say as to how far scientists can go. If you consider cloning the contrast between views can be staggering. Many groups are against it. If they had their say cloning might me stopped. If some scientists had thier say there would be clones in a few years. Ultimately, there needs to be some common ground, but this is by no means a clear cut issue.

44. I believe that the public should have some involvement in making science policies. By allowing the public to make major decisions involving science policies they must be informed to the fullest extent. By being informed it allows the public to make a well thought out decision which along with government, scientists, and our communities will be satisfied with the polices. I do not believe that the public make the final concluding decision but in this ethical situation, the people of the land should have say in the policy making process. Also I believe that once the public is fully informed about the issues there will be much controversy over information that in past times have been kept out of the public's eyes and ears, and there will be many more activist's groups.<BR> <BR>

45. The public should be involved in make science policies. Most of the money that is put towards these policies comes from the public, both directly and indirectly. Because of this donation of money, the public should have a chance to be able to voice their opinions about what scientific study it is being used for. Many people have different opinions about how money toward scientific ventures should be used.

Options can range from disease research from space travel. The publics opinions should be taken into consideration when forming science policies.

46. The public should have a say in how the government spends its money in science. We vote for certain leaders for their positions on education, health care, or taxation - why not for their ideas on the sciences?

Better yet, why not establish a referendum to decide how our tax money will be spent on science? I know that I'd rather see billions of dollars going toward research on AIDS, vitamin-rich rice, or fuel- efficient vehicles than on rockets to Mars.

47. I don't believe that we should allow the public to vote on certain scientific issues. I don't feel that the public should have any influence what so ever on the issues. The reason for this is that the vast majority of the public does not have extensive knowledge in the field of science. I feel the scientists would be the ones with the most experience, and knowledge, so therefore they should be the ones to vote on whatever issues come up.

48. Idealy, yes, the public should have substantial, educated input on scientific policies that are being made. So long as it is the public's tax money funding these projects, they should have say in where their money is going. There is, however, the sad truth that if proper facilities are not given funding to for certain projects, other, less reputable, groups will inevitably successfully complete the same research. So actually, in the end, whether or not people agree with the project or experiment, it will, somewhere, somehow get done. The question people then have to ask themselves is, who do they want making the latest advances in scientific research?

49. I think that the public should be involved in making science policies, especially if our money is being used. I think scientific research is definitely worthwhile and should be allowed, as long as there's some beneficial reason for doing so. Working on cures for diseases is a good example. Studying something like the effects of UV rays on lizards in Arizona...not a worthwhile venture (at least in my opinion).

50. I do not think that the public should be involved in making science policies. For the most part, the public does not know enough about the topic for anything beneficial to come from it. I think that policies are best made by experienced scientists who have a strong background in the subject. Otherwise it is almost a waste of time.

51. Yes the public should be involved in making science policies. Science affects everyone, we all have to live on this planet, if scientists are making choices about bombs or cloning and things that affect everyone then everyone should be involved in deciding if that should happen. Scientists are still people and they should know and understand that their actions affect everyone.

52. The public should have a say in what the government gives funding towards, and what organizations use the money towards. The United States considers itself a democracy, and thus, the power should rest in the people's hands. Since the research is designed to better the country as a whole, the whole of the country should be able to decide. Problems arise when the majority of decisions are left to the few.

53. When dealing with this issue, I think that the public should be concerned with science policies, only if they how an interest in actually doing it. I doubt that the public would care that much, if at all about having any decision in certain policies that do arrive, as usually these policies don't effect the individual. If the public does show a strong interest in these issues, then they should have all the more power to them to let their two cents be heard.

54. I do not think that the public should be allowed to be involved with the making of science policies. I feel this way because I do not think that the public knows as much about these topics as educated scientists do, thus I do not think should be in control of these decisions. Some people in the public may be educated or educate themselves to know more about the topic at hand, yet if we open this up for anyone to help make these policies, we have to open it up for everyone in the public. And although there are a few that may have good points and make good decisions concerning science policies, there are always those who won't be educated and want to voice an opinion none the less. This is why I feel that science should be left up to those most educated in the field.

55. I am unsure if the public should be involved in deciding how much funding goes towards certain areas of scientific research. If the money involved is tax money that the public has paid, then yes I do believe that they should have a say. In this case, the money that is dealt with is technically their money; therefore, they should have some say as to where that money goes. On the other hand, if this is private business money or any other form of money that did not come from the public, then I do not believe that they should have a say in it. In that case, it would be up to the people that the money belonged to.

56. The public should not be involved in making scientific policies because the public simply does not have the backround that scientists do. The public can be easliy swayed by ad campaigns and other types of media; for the most part, the layperson would not have all the facts concerning certain policies. This is why it should be scientists who specialize in certain fields and know a great deal about those fields that should make policies.