Science and Technology Week 2005

November 24th, 2005

Citizens’ Jury

1. Presentation

Scientific knowledge and technologies have deeply transformed the societies in which we live. It is not possible, nowadays, to think of contemporary societies without these technologies and knowledge. And it is undeniable that they have produced many effects that we consider positive and beneficial. Yet, occasionally they create problems and threats to security, health, environment, and towards life in society that cannot be anticipated. It is important, therefore, that we learn through the experiences of living with these technologies and knowledge. On the one hand, it is crucial to know which are the research and innovation development guidelines that may be more advantageous, so as to allow for their support and progress; on the other, it is likewise important to identify the potential problems, threats and risks that may be associated with these technologies and knowledge, so that we may learn to avoid or prevent them, or to reduce and minimize their effects. In order to achieve this in a democratic society, the citizens that endure the consequences  associated to the development and usage of scientific knowledge and technological innovation - positive and negative, desirable and undesirable - should hold the possibility and capacity of publicly debating these issues, both among themselves and in dialogue with scientists, technicians and policy-makers. This has happened in different countries, through the organization of initiatives and debates (such as the one we are promoting here), namely by the creation of a citizens’ jury.

A citizens’ jury is an initiative that allows a group of citizens to listen to a group of experts, holding different positions or even opposite ones, concerning polemic or controversial issues tied to scientific knowledge, technologies, public health problems, environment or urban governance. The citizens shall afterwards debate the issue in discussion taking into account the information and opinions offered by the experts, as to subsequently deliberate on the items they consider positive and negative concerning the issue in discussion. The result of such deliberation originates a statement document, which registers the aspects generating agreement and disagreement that arose during the debate and deliberation. These may be set into public discussion and/or sent to institutions associated to these fields.

In a country where such debates and initiatives have been scarce, the school is a privileged space for carrying out such activity. The school is, by its very definition, the place for learning that can create the conditions and promote capacities towards critical discussion of issues relevant to society. Moreover, it is the selected place for learning and training active citizenship. Indeed, with this activity we are dealing with active citizenship towards the society of knowledge.

Organization

a. Constitution of jury (5m)
b. Presentation of experts’ positions regarding positive and negative implications of internet use on social life (10m+10m)
Experts: José Manuel Mendes and Tiago Santos Pereira

a. Reunion of the jury for debate and deliberation and selection of spokesperson (30m)
b. Elaboration of statement document (20m)
c. Discussion of statement documents with the audience (25m)
Total time: 100m


Functions

Jury spokesperson
Jury chair (NECTS)
Meeting secretariat  (spokesperson assisted by NECTS/CES member)
Elaboration of reunion proceedings and of written report (GCI students)