Which technology decisions should be made by the public rather than by researchers or companies?

Some technology choices are technical: which algorithm is faster, which material is stronger. Others are choices about how we want to live: whether faces can be scanned in public, whether health data can be used for research, whether a new organism may be released into nature.

We are asking where the line should be drawn. A principle sometimes invoked is the precautionary principle, the idea that when an action could cause serious harm, the absence of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason to delay protective measures. It is widely cited and widely disputed.

A good answer would pick a specific technology, say who currently decides and who should, give reasons based on stakes, reversibility and who bears the risk, and suggest how the public could be involved in practice: a vote, a citizens' panel, a public consultation, or an independent regulator.

Examples where public involvement worked, or failed, are especially welcome.