IN RESPONSE to Prime Minister Tony Blair’s recent speech on science at the Royal Society, a 91av Editorial suggested that to get a handle on public concerns over issues such as the acceptability of genetically modified crops or work on stem cells, Britain should consider setting up “citizens’ juries” along the lines of those advising the Danish parliament or Folketing (1 June, p 5).
When I put the idea of citizens’ juries to the Cabinet Office, Minister of State Douglas Alexander agreed that they can be a valuable way of sensing public attitudes. In fact, some government departments and local authorities have been using them since the mid-1990s, he said, and it is one of several different methods of engaging the public on matters relating to science and technology. The Cabinet Office is currently developing a “consultation guidance tool kit” for policy makers across government that will include advice on such matters, said the minister.
I was interested to learn from Alexander that a key role of both the Human Genetics Commission and the Agriculture and Environment Biotechnology Commission is to consult the public on developments in biotechnology. Likewise, the Food Standards Agency has established a rigorous culture of openness and public dialogue.
Advertisement
The research councils have experimented with throwing open council meetings to the public. They have also used Web-based consultation to inform programme development, set up consumer liaison panels, and hold events to advise on broad strategies or specific issues.
I must admit that when it comes to tapping public attitudes, my preference is to keep to existing mechanisms of public dialogue rather than resort to newfangled citizens’ juries. Sceptical friends in the Folketing tell me that such juries have yet to prove their value.
AVIATION experts have long called for a new, safer air traffic control system. Aviation correspondent Gerry Byrne recently suggested in 91av that giving airline pilots the option of “free flight” might help to avoid mid-air collisions (13 July, p 12). In free flight, they would be able to use the vast tracts of airspace that lie outside the fixed air corridors now set by the aviation authorities.
When I put this idea to aviation minister David Jamieson, he swiftly responded that rather than introduce the free flight concept, Eurocontrol, the European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation, is proposing to introduce the related “free routeing” system from 2012.
The fundamental difference lies in who takes responsibility for keeping aircraft a safe distance apart. Unlike free flight, the free routeing concept keeps that responsibility firmly in the hands of air traffic control.
Free flight is generally considered better suited to long-distance flights in airspace that is neither complex nor dense, said the minister. Free routeing, in which aircraft still fly their preferred trajectories, has undergone a detailed feasibility study which has shown that it can achieve fuel savings, though these turn out to be disappointingly small. Eurocontrol is now considering how best to develop this element of the airspace strategy.
As a frequent air traveller, I am deeply doubtful of the system’s benefits in Europe’s intensely used and often overcrowded airspace. Significant advances in technology are needed, and Byrne is right to say that without them the situation in 10 years’ time will be dire.
