For hundreds of years, science has operated with a social contract : science develops knowledge that improves the human condition and expands the range of what is possible while society provides public funds, infrastructure, and institutional support. Sustained investments in research have paid dividends to society, in the form of inventions and discoveries, new technologies, and more innovation in general.
Today, this contract is being strained. Governments are increasingly demanding measurable returns from public investments in research while public trust in institutions is reducing. The next phase of scientific progress must involve citizens as beneficiaries and taxpayers as well as as partners in deciding which questions science should address and how scientific knowledge should be used. Curiosity-driven research often produces unexpected discoveries that eventually transform society. Yet governments, as major patrons of science, are increasingly asserting their right to determine where research money should go. There are legitimate reasons for this. But governments misstep when their policy-driven management becomes intrusive. Here, while expert-led foresight exercises tended to emphasise technological advancement, 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 relating to groundwater, urban pollution, agricultural resilience, coastal erosion, public health, biodiversity, nutrition or climate adaptation, for example, can be developed through structured dialogue among scientists, policymakers, and the most affected communities. Another compelling reason for citizen participation is trust. Specifically, public trust in governments and institutions is becoming increasingly fragile. Scientists and universities are sometimes portrayed as distant elites disconnected from the concerns of ordinary people. At the same time, misinformation spreads rapidly through social media and emotional narratives can compete successfully 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. At present, many researchers are trained to design experiments, analyse data, and publish papers but not necessarily to build long-term relationships with communities. That must change. Community engagement should be integrated into research training. Academic recognition should extend beyond publications and citations to include meaningful societal engagement and co-produced research. Funding agencies should also encourage researchers to explain, wherever appropriate, how communities will participate in setting priorities, conducting research, interpreting results and disseminating findings. To be sure, not every laboratory experiment requires citizen participation. The objective is also not to impose participation mechanically. Public involvement should instead become the default expectation for research with significant societal implications, with researchers explaining why participation is inappropriate when it is not used. Should an emerging technology be deployed rapidly or cautiously? How much privacy should society sacrifice for technological convenience? How should the benefits and risks of artificial intelligence be distributed? How should climate-transition costs be shared? Such questions can benefit enormously from community engagement. This transformation also requires some humility from scientists. Scientists must learn to listen, be willing to hear uncomfortable questions, acknowledge uncertainties, and recognise the values embedded in their own recommendations. At the same time, the public must recognise that scientific evidence cannot always provide simple answers to complex social questions.
As a result, science can no longer afford to remain an activity conducted largely for society but without society. Because public resources are finite, governments are obligated to resolve national priorities. Under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 programme, citizens from numerous countries participated in developing research priorities.
