Final Report Editor Ulrike Felt June 2003

National Profile Portugal 552
to science. These increases are, as is the norm in other countries, accompanied by a
slight increase in criticisms directed towards scientific risks and problems (OCT, 2000).
3. The role of the Department of the Environment
In view of the importance of present debates concerning the environment, which are so
closely related with issues and expertise of scientific nature, one would expect that the
Department of the Environment (established in 1990, in Portugal) would promote action
in the field of the popularisation of science, for the clarification of the scientific issues
involved in such debates. However, initiatives in this area are not being pursued in a
direct manner.
It is, nevertheless, possible to consider that, connected with the activities of the
Environment Department, two issues are worth mentioning as contributions to the
penetration of scientific issues into the public realm and media discussions.
One of them are the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) procedures and
hearings. These procedures and hearings, and mainly those connected with the EIA
studies, are always a medium that brings scientific issues to public reflexion and
discussion. The scientists who are responsible for the studies often dwell lengthily on
scientific considerations. The public involved in these processes is, thus, often lead to
perceive scientific methods and instruments through the impact that these may have on
their lives. We could consider this is the way to actually involve the public into a
contextual understanding of science, and a motivated one. These EIA audiences may,
thus, be considered an interface where science meets the public, even if they do not
incorporate an explicit motivation of scientific diffusion. Several commentators have
now analysed these EIA audiences and are unanimous in considering that they are
monopolised by participants with a scientific background. Communication with the
public follows mainly the deficit model, the public being seen as lacking in scientific
information and constructed as in need of instructions and as subject to nimby
syndroms.
A recent EIA process, concerning the incineration of toxic waste, clearly illustrates this
point. In the beginning of 2000, the Environment Minister, faced with strong public
contestation of a co-incineration project of toxic waste, decided that an Independent
Scientific Committee (ISC) would study advantages and disadvantages of coincineration
in cement factories, and come up with a recommendation that would be
followed by the government. Nevertheless, an even stronger public and parliamentary
contest followed the ISC recommendation favouring co-incineration, and choosing the
factories where it should be done. Several debates and interviews both with the
Minister and with public figures opposing co-incineration, took place. And, to make a