Session 1.3

A Citizen Work Group as part of a transdisciplinary research project on nuclear waste disposal in Germany

Roman Seidl 1, Cord Drögemüller 1, Pius Krütli 2, Clemens Walther 1

1 Leibniz University Hannover, Germany; 2 ETH Zurich, Switzerland

We report on a collaboration with citizens as integral part of the research within the transdisciplinary project on high-level nuclear waste (HLW) disposal in Germany. We recruited a citizen working group (CWG) of 16 German individuals (9 women, 7 men) according to the following characteristics: candidates are neither experts nor stakeholders; they rather represent society’s moderate or middle faction without specific political ideology; thus, they likely resemble ‘normal citizens’ who are critical thinkers but not destructive in discussion. Furthermore, team-mindedness is required and people are able to engage during the project period of five years. The rationale of these selection criteria was to have a well working group that is able and willing to collaborate with scientists and to become their ‘extended peer community’.

We designed a thorough stepwise recruitment process comprising various methods: a survey (N = 5’000), a second survey for interested participants (N = 700) followed by 30 personal interviews. We selected the final group according to educational background, gender and age. The group represents several German federal states. Thus, at the current stage, there is no focus on potentially affected regions.

The CWG’s general mission is to critically reflect on the research pursued within the project. Together we defined an agreement on the working rules in a written ‘working basis’- document. This document clarifies the frame of mutual expectations and increases commitment from all parties.

After a first kick-off meeting (in person) and an introductory workshop on transdisciplinary methods (online) we conducted two more workshops (online). Several insights resulted from these workshops. For instance, CWG-members were not aware of a trade-off between safety-gain and safety-reduction due to the monitoring technology. After researchers made visible that trade-off during the workshop, the CWG became more ambivalent. Furthermore, CWG members suggested potential technical solutions. Concerning trust in science, the CWG also put forth criteria for emerging trust, such as including all opinions without being condescending. Furthermore, neutrality, objectivity, and experience in the field are assets. Group members also showed different opinions about the role of social sciences and the humanities in nuclear waste disposal, addressed in subsequent interviews.

Summarizing, the project team has so far learnt that facts, appearing obvious to researchers, may not be so obvious for citizens. Responses may cover topics that are related to the citizens’ experience and social life. However, they are clearly able to understand technical intricacies and engage in brainstorming concrete solutions. The CWG received insights how science works, in particular that science has to cope with uncertainties and trade-offs. Most importantly, in terms of trust, CWG members appreciated being taken seriously and offered no ‘pure and perfect’ solutions but insights where knowledge is still to be generated.

Until now, the Covid-19 pandemic forced us to work online. Participants nevertheless engage eagerly. Hence, we conclude that the carefully structured recruitment process contributed to establishing a well-working group. Both parties, researchers and citizens, have so far benefited from the collaboration and currently the satisfaction with the achievements is high.