Geoengineering, Scientific Responsibility and Public Trust
Wendy Parker
Ohio University
Climate change is perhaps the most visible current example of a politicized scientific issue. It is
already beset by complicated expert-public relations. Many members of the public report low
trust in climate scientists, concerned that they have political and/or environmental commitments,
or even selfish careerist motives, that lead them to deliberately overstate the risks of climate
change. This perception is encouraged by climate “deniers” who exaggerate uncertainty
surrounding the issue, but climate scientists sometimes exacerbate the situation themselves by
downplaying real uncertainties and failing to sufficiently acknowledge the limitations of model
projections. As geoengineering options for responding to climate change are broached, issues of
scientific responsibility and public trust will become even more salient. It is rather
uncontroversial that scientists will have a responsibility to try to foresee negative side effects of
geoengineering interventions, to communicate the perceived risks to the public, and to discuss
the extent to which serious unforeseen consequences remain more than just a logical possibility.
But given that trust in climate experts (and climate science) is already on shaky ground, there is
reason to worry that what experts report about geoengineering – if it is viewed as yet another
report from the scientific experts – will also be viewed with significant distrust by many
members of the public. To avoid this situation, it is worth exploring how work on
geoengineering could engage the public from the outset. If decisions about which geoengineering
options to make a priority for investigation (if any) are guided in part by discussion with the
public (e.g. via consensus panels), and if reports on risks are co-produced by scientists and
citizens, attending to the sorts of potential impacts that are of greatest concern to citizens, then
higher levels of public trust might be secured.