New research emerging from a collaborative effort between ESMT Berlin and Politecnico di Milano delves into the increasingly pivotal role of public involvement in assessing scientific research proposals. This observational study, recently published in the esteemed journal Research Policy, offers unprecedented insights into how non-expert citizens evaluate scientific projects, revealing intricate dynamics that challenge traditional assumptions about public engagement in science funding.
The study took place at a crucial juncture where science policymaking grapples with democratizing funding decisions without compromising rigor. Over 2,300 citizen evaluators participated in the research, each confronted with real-world research proposals sourced from the crowdfunding platform experiment.com. These proposals spanned diverse domains, from cutting-edge COVID-19 drug discovery efforts and Alzheimer’s disease investigations to ecological inquiries involving otter-human conflicts in Florida and socio-economic analyses of demographic preferences. This multidisciplinary scope ensured that evaluators faced a realistic, heterogeneous set of scientific challenges.
Participants were asked to assess each proposal based on three primary evaluative dimensions: scientific merit, social impact, and team qualifications. Scientific merit referred to the extent to which a project could push academic frontiers and contribute novel insights to the scientific community. Social impact illuminated the potential societal benefits, including improvements in health, environmental sustainability, or community wellbeing. Team qualifications, a critical but sometimes underestimated factor, probed the perceived ability of the researchers to deliver on their promises effectively and competently.
One of the study’s most revealing findings was the nearly equal weighting that participants assigned to social impact and scientific merit when making funding decisions. This outcome dispels a common skepticism within the scientific community that non-experts overly prioritize feel-good or socially appealing aspects at the expense of scientific quality. Instead, the data indicate a sophisticated evaluative process where citizens care both deeply about the tangibility of benefits and the robustness of the underlying science. Team qualifications, while secondary to the former two criteria, nonetheless contributed meaningfully to funding choices, demonstrating public sensitivity to research credibility and feasibility.
An intriguing aspect of the investigation focused on how the evaluation mechanism itself shaped participation and judgment patterns. Two distinctive systems were employed: a recommendation mechanism, wherein participants advised a funding agency on potential allocations, and a crowdfunding mechanism, where participants could invest their own money. The crowdfunding route revealed a skewed demographic leaning toward more affluent and educated individuals, suggesting that financial stakes may create barriers to broader inclusiveness. Conversely, the recommendation mechanism allowed for a more diverse and participatory citizen cohort, raising questions about equity and representativeness in public funding models.
Beyond demographic influences, psychological factors such as personal connection and vested interest surfaced as potent modulators of judgments. Participants who had direct or indirect affiliations with the research topics tended to evaluate proposals more favorably and inflate their perceived social impact. Such findings caution against the uncritical assumption that public involvement is inherently unbiased; instead, they suggest that processes must be engineered carefully to mitigate potential wishful thinking or self-interest distortions in decision-making.
The study’s results signal profound implications for the governance of science funding in an era increasingly characterized by Mode 2 knowledge production—where science is socially distributed, application-oriented, and transdisciplinary. Policymakers are thus confronted with the paradox of integrating useful citizen input to ground research alignment with societal needs, while safeguarding scientific legitimacy and avoiding populist distortions. The authors advocate for hybrid evaluation frameworks that combine expert peer review with citizen participation, capitalizing on the strengths of each. Experts deliver methodological rigor, grounded technical appraisal, and specialized knowledge, whereas citizens inject perspectives on social relevance, ethical concerns, and broader value judgments.
This hybrid approach demands an intentional design of evaluation processes that acknowledge the complexities and trade-offs inherent in democratizing science assessment. Public engagement should be more than a slogan or box-ticking exercise; it requires deliberate scaffolding through structured deliberation, transparent criteria, and reflective mechanisms to continually refine inclusivity and fairness. Only through such nuanced orchestration can science funding evolve to embody both excellence and democratic legitimacy.
Variability across different proposal topics and among individual citizen priorities underscores the challenges in predicting evaluative outcomes and managing participatory processes. Given that citizens weigh criteria differently and bring divergent beliefs and experiences, evaluation patterns resist simple codification, highlighting the necessity for flexible, adaptive governance systems that can accommodate pluralistic input without sacrificing consistency or quality.
The findings resonate with broader discussions about the social contract for science in contemporary societies, where public trust and legitimacy matter as much as scientific breakthroughs. By revealing the nuanced values citizens attach to various dimensions of research, this study equips funders and policymakers with evidence-based guidance to navigate the complex terrain of participatory science funding. It also underscores an urgent call for ongoing experimentation and research into mechanisms that balance expert authority with public inclusiveness.
Intriguingly, the research nuances conventional wisdom by illustrating that non-scientists possess a layered evaluative competence, recognizing the interplay between technical merit and societal relevance. This challenges overly technocratic or populist models, advancing a middle path oriented toward collaborative governance and co-production of knowledge. Such a paradigm, though resource-intensive, aligns with modern imperatives for science to be not only excellent but also democratically accountable.
As the scientific community contemplates the future of funding models, this study’s evidence suggests that hybrid citizen-scientist partnerships can enrich the decision-making landscape, amplifying voices that resonate with contemporary societal challenges without diluting scientific standards. The process design, however, remains critical—a loose framework can exacerbate biases or exclusion, whereas carefully engineered systems could harness the complementary strengths of diverse evaluators.
In conclusion, the groundbreaking research conducted by ESMT Berlin and Politecnico di Milano reveals that public participation in science funding is a double-edged sword, capable of both democratizing decision-making and introducing novel biases. The equal prioritization of scientific merit and social impact by citizens indicates a maturation of public expectations around science, while the influence of personal circumstances and funding mechanisms on participation signals a need for thoughtful process innovation. As the interface between science and society continues to evolve, such insights will prove vital in shaping inclusive, transparent, and robust funding ecosystems that honor both intellectual rigor and democratic values.
Subject of Research: People
Article Title: When citizens judge science: Crowd evaluations in Mode 2 knowledge production
News Publication Date: 9-Jun-2025
Web References:
DOI link
