Indian voices and my (our) voices

Indian voices : Article : Nature

While the scientists in India are criticised for their inaction in policy debates, it still remains a question that whether Chinese scientists really have their voices heard by the public and policy makers. 

The NGOs in China are not as influent as those in India, not to mention in EU and in the US.  Therefore a scientist must seek the government if (s)he wants to be involved in the policy making process using his (her) knowledge.  But currently I do not think scientists in China are exerting their expertise enough to influence policy making.  The causes could be:

1. that many researchers consider participating in policy-making kind of diversion from their research, and are not willing to do this.  I may be well in this category, too.


2. that researchers do not consider fully their studies' policy implications.  China is traditionally more focused on "hard" science research and there is little training on proper conduct of science, and understanding of science-social relationships.


3. that researchers do not engage non-academic groups actively.  This is being changed in recent years, but I do not think is enough.  This is the only common problem of China and India on this issue that I can think of.


4. that the policy-making process is not "scholar-friendly".  This is illustrated by the hydrology engineering project in Yuanmingyuan Park taken place in 2005.  The role of advisor is dominated by senior academics and scholar-turned-officials rather than ecologists (very few in China at the moment, I admit) who are doing actual work.

The solution of the problem largely lies in the researchers' effort.  First of all, I think both "hard" and "soft" scientists should realise their studies' importance in terms of social effects.  They should also reach out to the public and tell them their scientific interpretation on policies and trends (which may not be necessarily good, but people should be informed).  Many people do not like Zuoxiu He, but I think China lacks such scientists/lobbists.

On the other hand, the policy making process should be based on scientific evidences and principle of precautionary rather than on authorities and experiences.  This could be too complicated for a blog entry to elaborate so I will not extend it any more.

Thirdly, the public can form lobby groups when they feel their interests may be impaired by the policy proposed.  There is also misbelief in science to be broken.  The poorly educated Americans do not believe in science, but this indeed enables them to argue with scientists with full confidence, and sometimes they proved right.  An open debate will bring knowledge to both sides, given it is properly moderated.

In today's China scientists (in Chinese language context) are considered as half elite, half public, therefore I believe they can act well as the transitional layer in the elite-public interaction.  As the voice now is mainly dominated by elite-scholars, it is more vital for other scientists and researchers to make themselves heard.