Lay involvement in the public funding of medical research: expertise and counter-expertise in empirical and analytical perspective

Abstract

The relationship between social context, interaction, interpretation and the drawing of boundaries with regard to knowledge and competence deemed appropriate for informed decision-making is particularly pertinent with regard to the public funding of medical research. This article focuses on this issue by drawing on a study of an advisory group established to provide lay perspectives on the work of the UK's Medical Research Council, a publicly funded organisation that promotes and selectively funds basic and applied medical research. The impact of the advisory group on the Medical Research Council, particularly in terms of organisational culture, highlights the potential fluidity of boundaries that demarcate knowledge and competence among experts and lay actors. The potential for radical change in the role played by lay actors in the governance of science increases markedly once the ability to distinguish good science from bad is framed in terms that extend beyond methodological rigour and disciplinary innovation in the formulation of research proposals.