Ch. 13— Genetics and Society • 261 
The ‘‘public'' and “public participation" 
' These are terms with \astly ditferent mean- 
ings to dit't’erent people. Some take "the public” 
to mean an organized public interest gi'oup; 
others consider such groups the "professional” 
public and feel thev ha\e agendas that differ 
I from those of the less organized "general” pub- 
lic. .\s OKCD stated:'* 
I Public participation is a concept in search of a 
definition. Because it means different things to 
different people, agreement on what constitutes 
■ the public " and what delineates "'participation'" 
, is difficult to achie\ e. The public is not of course 
homogeneous: it is comprised of many hetero- 
geneous elements, interests, and preoccupa- 
tions. The emergence o\er the last several dec- 
I ades of new and sometime \ ocal special interest 
groups, each with its own set of competing 
I claims and demands, attests to the inherent dif- 
I ficultv of achieving social and political consen- 
sus on policy goals and programmes purporting 
to ser\ e the common interest. 
"Nii’hol.s. op. I'it.. p. 7. 
Because publics differ with each issue, no def- 
inition will be attempted here. It is assumed that 
"the public” is demanding a greater role in de- 
cisions about science and technology, and that it 
will continue to do so. The different publics that 
coalesce around different issues vary widely in 
their basic interests, their skills, and their 
ultimate objectives. They are the groups that 
will he heard in the widening debate about 
scientific and technological issues, and are part 
of u'hat has been called the "social system of 
science.”® 
The public has already become involved in 
the decisionmaking process involving genetic 
research. As the science develops, new issues in 
which .the public will demand involvement will 
arise. The question is therefore: What is the 
best way to involve the public in decision- 
making? 
'’J. M. Ziman. Public Knowledge (Camhridge: C:anihi'iclge Univer- 
sity Pre.ss. 1968). 
I 
I Issues and Options 
! Three issues are considered. The first is an 
i issue of process, concerning public invoh ement 
! in policymaking: the second is a technical issue; 
i and the third reflects the complexity of some 
j issues associated with genetics that may arise in 
; the future. 
; ISSUE: How should the public he in- 
, volved in determining policy re- 
I lated to new applications of ge- 
' netics? 
The question as to whether the public should 
I be im oh ed is no longer an issue. Groups de- 
mand to be involved when people feel that their 
interests are threatened in ways that cannot be 
j resoh ed by representative democracy. 
I The more relevant questions are whether 
f current mechanisms are adequate to meet pub- 
j lie desires to participate and whether a de- 
I 
I 
liberate effort should be made to increase pub- 
lic knowledge. The last can only be accom- 
plished by educating the public and increasing 
its exposure both to the issues and to how peo- 
ple may be affected by different decisions. 
OPTIONS: 
A. Congress could specify that the opinion of the 
public must be sought in formulating all major 
policies concerning new applications of ge- 
netics, including decisions on funding of spe- 
cific research projects. A "public participation 
statement" could be mandated for all such 
decisions. 
B. Congress could maintain the status quo, allow- 
ing the public to participate only when it de- 
cides to do so on its own initiative. 
If option A were followed, there would be no 
cause for claiming that public involvement was 
! 
II 
