Why the science-society contract needs citizens as research partners

For hundreds of years, science has operated with a social contract: science develops knowledge that improves the human condition and expands the scope of what is possible, while society provides public resources, infrastructure, and institutional support. Sustained investment in research has brought dividends to the company in the form of inventions and discoveries, new technologies and other innovations in general.

Today, that contract is strained. Governments are increasingly demanding measurable returns on public investment in research, while public trust in institutions is declining. Consequently, science can no longer afford to remain an activity performed mainly for society but without society. The next phase of scientific progress must involve citizens as beneficiaries and taxpayers as well as partners in deciding which questions science should address and how scientific knowledge should be used.

Patrons of science

Curiosity-driven research often yields unexpected discoveries that ultimately transform society. Yet governments, as the main patrons of science, are increasingly asserting their right to determine where research money should go. There are legitimate reasons for this. Governments are obliged to address national priorities because public resources are limited. But governments err when their policy-driven management becomes intrusive.

When funding decisions are driven primarily by short-term political priorities or economic returns, areas of research that are not easily measurable, such as parts of the social sciences, humanities, climate research and basic science, become vulnerable to being – unjustifiably – considered too small. Yes, science must serve society, but science also works better when it maintains the intellectual freedom needed to challenge prevailing assumptions and explore questions whose value may not be immediately obvious.

Governments as patrons have the right to set broad priorities and expectations, but should not use science policy as a pretext to politically micromanage research. But the answer is also not to isolate science further from society. Instead, the answer lies in the middle: scientists need to build a wider constituency for science by involving society in the research process.

To achieve this, scientists need compelling stories about why research matters and allies across communities, civil society, industry, education and public institutions.

What citizens know

Inviting citizens to research does not mean replacing scientific knowledge with general opinion. A scientist trained in epidemiology knows considerably more about disease transmission than the average citizen. A climatologist understands atmospheric processes in a way that a farmer does not. However, the reverse is also true. A farmer may have knowledge about changing soil behavior and crop resistance that a scientist in a laboratory may not. Forest dwellers may have detailed knowledge of medicinal plants, forests and biodiversity that is missing from formal databases.

Scientific knowledge and community knowledge are different – ​​and can be complementary. The challenge is to put them together. This is especially important for a country like India, which is one of the most biologically and culturally diverse countries in the world. Indeed, India is too geographically vast and ecologically diverse for professional scientists alone to understand each landscape on their own. A citizen network can provide observations across locations and seasons that conventional research is not designed to capture. For example, a school student studying a butterfly or a bird watcher recording migratory species can contribute to ecological knowledge. Citizen science can transform the relationship between the public and scientific institutions.

India’s long tradition of community conservation reveals another aspect of this argument. Sacred groves, community forests, germplasm conservation, traditional resource management systems and so on demonstrate that local communities have often developed sophisticated ways of understanding and protecting ecosystems. One of the key metrics of success in research is observation, which many local communities excel at. So instead of just entering a village to collect traditional knowledge and leave with a publication, researchers can and should establish long-term partnerships with communities. Local knowledge holders should be involved in formulating research questions, identifying species, helping to interpret findings and making decisions about how knowledge is documented and used.

Restoring trust

As part of the European Union’s Horizon 2020 program, citizens from many countries participated in creating research priorities. While expert-led forecasting exercises here tended to emphasize technological progress, citizens placed greater emphasis on strong communities, health and well-being, education and local economies. A similar approach in India could have significant implications. Research priorities related to, for example, groundwater, urban pollution, agricultural resilience, coastal erosion, public health, biodiversity, nutrition or climate adaptation can be developed through structured dialogue between scientists, policy makers and the most affected communities.

Another important reason for citizen participation is trust. Specifically, public trust in governments and institutions is increasingly fragile. Scientists and universities are sometimes portrayed as distant elites disconnected from the concerns of ordinary people. At the same time, misinformation spreads quickly through social media, and emotional narratives can successfully compete with carefully established scientific evidence. The instinctive response is often to communicate more science. But perhaps the deeper problem is a lack of participation and ownership.

People are more likely to support a process when they believe their voices have been heard. They may not agree with every conclusion, but they are more likely to accept a decision if the reasoning is transparent and their concerns have been seriously considered. This is particularly important for contentious topics such as climate change, vaccinations, genetic modification, artificial intelligence and biotechnology. Science cannot promise that every citizen will agree with every scientific conclusion—nor should it. But it can promise a fair opportunity for questions, participation, reflection and understanding.

Humility from scientists

Currently, many researchers are trained to design experiments, analyze data, and publish papers, but not necessarily to build long-term relationships with communities. That has to change. Community involvement should be embedded in research training. Academic recognition should extend beyond publications and citations to include meaningful social engagement and co-produced research. Funding agencies should also encourage researchers to explain, where appropriate, how communities will be involved in setting priorities, conducting research, interpreting results and disseminating findings.

Of course, not every laboratory experiment requires citizen participation. Nor is the aim to mechanically impose participation. Public involvement should instead become a default expectation for research with significant societal implications, with researchers explaining why participation is inappropriate when it is not used. Should new technology be deployed quickly or cautiously? How much privacy should society sacrifice for technological convenience? How should the benefits and risks of artificial intelligence be apportioned? How should the costs of climate change be shared? Such questions can benefit enormously from community involvement.

This transformation also requires some humility from scientists. Scientists must learn to listen, be willing to hear uncomfortable questions, acknowledge uncertainties, and recognize the values ​​embedded in their own recommendations. At the same time, the public must recognize that scientific evidence cannot always provide simple answers to complex social questions.

Biju Dharmapalan is Dean, Academic Affairs, Garden City University, Bengaluru, and Adjunct Faculty Member, National Institute of Advanced Studies, Bengaluru.

Published – 13 Oct 2026 08:30 IST