Role of, and relation to, science in today's societies, as well as the issue of confidence in researchers/institutions

The author addressed the role of, and relation to, science in today's societies, as well the issue of confidence in researchers/institutions. The author underscored that social trust and partnership is developed through dialogue of scientists and technical experts with the full range of stakeholders, including policy makers and implementers. Effective dialogue, based on reciprocal learning and capacity building, will further the understanding of the tensions and different viewpoints and values, and reveal areas of uncertainty. This type of dialogue responds to a social demand to reappraise publicly and reflexively. This important process cannot unfold if research is cloistered and kept separate. It is essential to mobilize knowledge, share it, and allow the process for social evaluation of science. Radioactive waste management is a socially-constructed problem; an acceptable response cannot therefore be separated from the public concerned. Expert evaluations that support regulatory processes are insufficient for strong decision-making where there are issues of high risk and uncertainty. Science must be considered in broader social context. The public is more suspicious of expert processes' of risk assessment that are non-transparent. Stakeholder confidence requires building relationships of different components of society. Building stakeholder confidence is about hopes to be shared, and must consider relationships between the actors. Research must be sensitive to the social relationships of the problem and respond to areas of public interest. Trust in process is key. The foundation for a successful dialogue is agreement of the initial hypothesis is that there is a need to address the issue in question. Real dialogue also demands that participants are respectful of others' views and principles. This requires willingness to work on the future together on common problems. There must be a capacity to listen to others, and assimilate different views. This in turn, requires processes and training to allow an effective exchange of views to take place. Participants from specialist communities, and institutional actors, must be willing to listen to other views that matter to the public. Quality issues must also be addressed, recognizing that quality is also shaped by social criteria. Contributions of science and experts must be considered as institutional questions of what is considered 'research'? What is 'good research'? What constitutes quality? Sharing of research through stakeholder dialogue provides an important opportunity to build bridges to bring in different disciplines to the discussion. Integral to the process, is the integration of social science expertise which, in addition to offering a broad range of insight, has an important role in assessing and establishing the legitimacy of other streams of science. It was suggested that more significant investments are required to integrate the contributions of social science into projects in the nuclear sector. There are challenges associated with executing and communicating research. The author addressed the issue of competence required to support effective dialogue, and the reciprocal burden of proof in which all actors are required to be attentive to a spectrum of quality criteria and principles. He emphasized that expertise must be built in a fundamental way, not as a communication strategy. He noted that ambiguities may arise in science and technology, and that challenges are greatest where there are many different social values, remaining areas of uncertainty, risk, and high decision stakes in terms of long- term impacts of decisions taken. It is not always possible to reconcile multiple principles. Recognition and acceptance of these vulnerabilities assists in building trust. The author offered a helpful framework for working through challenges - 'Ethical Bottom Lines', which offer principles of responsibility for stewardship of radioactive waste: - Have responsibilities of existing parties been appropriately assigned? - Have responsibilities 'towards other parties' in the short term been adequately addressed? (e.g. worker health and safety, security) - Have responsibilities 'towards other parties' in the long term been adequately addressed? (e.g. Long-term stability of knowledge transfer, inter-generational fairness, provision for contingencies) - Has available technical know-how and systems science been mobilised? (e.g. Adoption of best practices and standards, monitoring) - Is the solution economically viable? - Does the solution enhance the prestige of the host communities and other stakeholder groups closely associated with the residual/waste site? He noted three key components for a viable solution to radioactive waste management: - Development, application and maintenance of scientific knowledge and technical competency to measure and control the present and eventual exposure of living beings to radioactivity; - Building societal relationships with the site, envisaging how the community will relate to and interact with the site, the waste, the records, etc.; and - Political and economic partnerships, to enable mobilization of the relevant knowledge and resources for implementation of an agreed societal strategy for stewardship