Credit: fortheloveofcc/Flickr

Debating science in a court setting may boost public trust

Holding science-based courtroom debates could help educate and engage citizens in shaping public policy.

In short:

A citizens' jury on genome editing, funded by Wellcome Trust, exemplified a non-traditional method of public engagement in science policy.
Trust in scientists has declined significantly, highlighting the need for inclusive decision-making involving both experts and the public.
Science courts, modeled on the U.S. court system, could address policy questions with scientific expertise to foster informed public trust.

Why this matters:

Improving public trust in science through participatory methods can lead to better-informed health policies and greater societal acceptance of scientific advancements. Read more: EPA’s “scientific integrity” program lacks teeth, group alleges.

Senator Whitehouse puts climate change on budget committee’s agenda

For more than a decade, Senator Sheldon Whitehouse gave daily warnings about the mounting threat of climate change. Now he has a powerful new perch.