Scientists’ Prioritization of Communication Objectives for Public Engagement

Amid calls from scientific leaders for their colleagues to become more effective public communicators, this study examines the objectives that scientists’ report drive their public engagement behaviors. We explore how scientists evaluate five specific communication objectives, which include informing the public about science, exciting the public about science, strengthening the public’s trust in science, tailoring messages about science, and defending science from misinformation. We use insights from extant research, the theory of planned behavior, and procedural justice theory to identify likely predictors of scientists'' views about these communication objectives. Results show that scientists most prioritize communication designed to defend science from misinformation and educate the public about science, and least prioritize communication that seeks to build trust and establish resonance with the public. Regression analyses reveal factors associated with scientists who prioritize each of the five specific communication objectives. Our findings highlight the need for communication trainers to help scientists select specific communication objectives for particular contexts and audiences.     

The governance of human genetics: policy discourse and constructions of public trust

The collection of practices now commonly understood as 'biotechnology' poses a challenge to traditional mechanisms of regulating science and technology, just as it challenges traditional practices of science. The task of regulation is to reconcile the often conflicting political demands of protecting science, economy and the public interest. Public trust is the key measure of political success or failure. The purpose of this paper is to use policy discourse analysis as a vehicle for exploring the politics of the relationship between human genetics governance and public trust. An analysis of 30 policy documents produced six identifiable discourse streams relevant to public trust. These findings will be discussed, and an analysis of their impact on effective governance presented in conclusion.     

The origin of acquired immune deficiency syndrome: Can science afford to ignore it?

There is a crisis of public faith in science and scientists. Recent research shows concern over scientific ethics, transparency and who benefits from research and development, exemplified in the genetically modified organism debate. Scientific discussion of the polio vaccine hypothesis for the origin of acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS) has been systematically suppressed for more than 12 years. The author calls for an international multidisciplinary inquiry into the origin of AIDS, arguing it is essential to human health, prevention of new pandemics, and to protect the integrity of science in the eyes of the public.     

Implicit Trust between the Uyghur and the Han in Xinjiang,China

Trust is a vital lubricant that increases the sense of security in social interactions. In this study, we investigated the intergroup trust between the Uyghur and the Han, the two largest ethnic groups in Xinjiang, China, with a Go/No-Go Association Task. Specifically, we instructed Uyghur and Han participants to respond to ethnic faces (Uyghur vs. Han) and trust/distrust words and measured the strength of the automatic associations between the faces and words for both in-group and out-group pairs. As expected, both ethnic groups showed implicit in-group trust and out-group distrust, but the Han group demonstrated stronger in-group trust and out-group distrust toward the Uyghur than the Uyghur group toward the Han. However, the magnitude of distrust of the Han toward the Uyghur was small to medium as compared with that reported by other intergroup relationship research. In addition, participant geographic location was associated with out-group distrust. These findings offer implications for developing effective strategies to encourage trust between conflicting groups.     

On being a (modern) scientist: risks of public engagement in the UK interspecies embryo debate

In 2006, a small group of UK academic scientists made headlines when they proposed the creation of interspecies embryos – mixing human and animal genetic material. A public campaign was fought to mobilize support for the research. Drawing on interviews with the key scientists involved, this paper argues that engaging the public through communicating their ideas via the media can result in tensions between the necessity of, and inherent dangers in, scientists campaigning on controversial issues. Some scientists believed that communicating science had damaged their professional standing in the eyes of their peers, who, in turn, policed the boundaries around what they believed constituted a “good” scientist. Tensions between promoting “science” versus promotion of the “scientist”; engaging the public versus publishing peer-reviewed articles and winning grants; and building expectations versus overhyping the science reveal the difficult choices scientists in the modern world have to make over the potential gains and risks of communicating science. We conclude that although scientists' participation in public debates is often encouraged, the rewards of such engagement remain. Moreover, this participation can detrimentally affect scientists' careers.     

Preventing biological weapon development through the governance of life science research

The dual-use dilemma in the life sciences-that illicit applications draw on the same science and technology base as legitimate applications-makes it inherently difficult to control one without inhibiting the other. Since before the September 11 attacks, the science and security communities in the United States have struggled to develop governance processes that can simultaneously minimize the risk of misuse of the life sciences, promote their beneficial applications, and protect the public trust. What has become clear over that time is that while procedural steps can be specified for assessing and managing dual-use risks in the review of research proposals, oversight of ongoing research, and communication of research results, the actions or decisions to be taken at each of these steps to mitigate dual-use risk defy codification. Yet the stakes are too high to do nothing, or to be seen as doing nothing. The U.S. government should therefore adopt an oversight framework largely along the lines recommended by the National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity almost 5 years ago-one that builds on existing processes, can gain buy-in from the scientific community, and can be implemented at modest cost (both direct and opportunity), while providing assurance that a considered and independent examination of dual-use risks is being applied. Without extraordinary visibility into the actions of those who would misuse biology, it may be impossible to know how well such an oversight system will actually succeed at mitigating misuse. But maintaining the public trust will require a system to be established in which reasonably foreseeable dual-use consequences of life science research are anticipated, evaluated, and addressed.     

Environmental indices and the politics of the Conservation Reserve Program

Environmental indicators can be used to target public programs to provide a variety of benefits. Social scientists, physical scientists, and politicians have roles in developing indicators that reflect the demands of diverse interest groups. We review the US Department of Agriculture’s Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), the largest agricultural conservation program the United States, to determine how a set of environmental indicators were developed and used, and assess results of their application. The use of such indicators has helped the CRP increase and broaden the program’s environmental benefits beyond erosion reduction, which was the primary focus of early program efforts, to meet other demands. This case study provides an example about how integration and assessment for the purpose of managing public resources requires more than natural science disciplines. Social science can help explain how public values influence what information is collected and how it is interpreted. Examples are given to show how the indices used for the CRP integrated science, politics and social values. In the end, the environmental benefits index (EBI) used to target US$ 20 billion of CRP funds reflects compromises made between science and policy considerations. It is our intention that studying this index will yield ideas and understanding from the natural science community that develops ecosystem indices about how to better plug in to programs in the future.     

Biobank governance: a lesson in trust

Biobanks are controversial due to their ethical, legal, and social implications. Recent discussion has highlighted a central role for governance in helping to address these controversies. We argue that sustainable governance of biobanks needs to be informed by public discourse. We present an analysis of a deliberative public engagement to explore the public values, concerns, and interests underlying recommendations pertaining to biobank governance. In particular, we identify five themes underlying expressed goals and concerns of participants regarding the development, operation and application of biobank research. Ultimately, we argue that, for the deliberants, governance represented a way to achieve trust in biobanks through accountability, transparency and control. As discussion of biobank governance moves the conceptual to the specific, policy makers and researchers should acknowledge the importance of the public viewpoint in maintaining trust; this acknowledgement is of importance to the ultimate success and longevity of biobanks.     

A priority paper for the societal and ethical aspects of synthetic biology

As synthetic biology develops into a promising science and engineering field, we need to have clear ideas and priorities regarding its safety, security, ethical and public dialogue implications. Based on an extensive literature search, interviews with scientists, social scientists, a 4 week long public e-forum, and consultation with several stakeholders from science, industry and civil society organisations, we compiled a list of priority topics regarding societal issues of synthetic biology for the years ahead. The points presented here are intended to encourage all stakeholders to engage in the prioritisation of these issues and to participate in a continuous dialogue, with the ultimate goal of providing a basis for a multi-stakeholder governance in synthetic biology. Here we show possible ways to solve the challenges to synthetic biology in the field of safety, security, ethics and the science–public interface.     

Lost in translation

Some view social constructivism as a threat to the unique objectivity of science in describing the world. But social constructivism merely observes the process of science and can offer ways for science to regain public esteem.Political groups, civil organizations, the media and private citizens increasingly question the validity of scientific findings about challenging issues such as global climate change, and actively resist the application of new technologies, such as GM crops. By using new communication technologies, these actors can reach out to many people in real time, which gives them a huge advantage over the traditional, specialist and slow communication of scientific research through peer-reviewed publications. They use emotive stories with a narrow focus, facts and accessible language, making them often, at least in the eyes of the public, more credible than scientific experts. The resulting strength of public opinion means that scientific expertise and validated facts are not always the primary basis for decision-making by policy-makers about issues that affect society and the environment.The scientific community has decried this situation not only as a crisis of public trust in experts but more so as a loss of trust in scientific objectivity. The reason for this development, some claim, is a postmodernist perception of science as a social construction [1]. This view claims that context—in other words society—determines the acceptance of a scientific theory and the reliability of scientific facts. This is in conflict with the more traditional view held by most scientists, that experimental evidence, analysis and validation by scientific means are the instruments to determine truth. ‘Social constructivism'', as this postmodernist view on science has been called, challenges the ‘traditional'' view of science: that it is an objective, experiment-based approach to collect evidence that results in a linear accumulation of knowledge, leading to reliable, scientifically proven facts and trust in the role of experts.However, constructivists maintain that society and science have always influenced one another, thereby challenging the notion that science is objective and only interested in uncovering the truth. Moderate social constructivism merely acknowledges a controversy and attempts to provide answers. The extreme interpretation of this approach sustains that all facts and all parties—no matter how absurd or unproven their ‘facts'' and claims—should be treated equally, without any consideration for their interests [2].…scientific expertise and validated facts are not always the primary basis for decision-making by policy-makers about issues that affect society and the environmentThe truth might actually be somewhere in the middle, between taking scientific results as absolute truths at one extreme, and requiring that all facts and all actors should be given equal attention and consideration at the other. What is needed, however, is a closer connection and mutual appreciation between science and society, especially when it comes to science policy and making decisions that require scientific expertise. To claim that all perspectives are equally important when there is a lack of absolute facts—leading to an ‘all truths are equal'' approach to decision-making—is surely ridiculous. Nonetheless, societies are highly complex and sufficient facts are often not available when policy-makers and regulatory bodies have to make a decision. The aim of this essay is to argue that social construction and scientific objectivity can coexist and even benefit from one another.The question is whether social constructivism really caused a crisis of objectivity and a change in the traditional view of science? A main characteristic of the traditional view is that science progresses in isolation from any societal influences. However, there are historical and contemporary examples of how social mores influence the acceptability of certain areas of research, the direction of scientific research and even the formation of a scientific consensus—or in the words of Thomas Kuhn, of a scientific paradigm.Arrival at a scientific consensus driven by non-scientific factors will probably happen in a new research field when there is insufficient scientific information or knowledge to make precise claims. As such, societal factors can become determinants in settling disputes, at least until more information emerges. Religious and ethical beliefs have had such an impact on science throughout history. One could argue, for example, that the focus on research into induced pluripotent stem cells and the potency of adult stem cells is driven, at least in part, by religious and ethical objections to using human embryonic stem cells. Similarly, the near universal consensus that scientists should not clone humans is not based on scientific reason, but on social, religious and ethical arguments.Another example of the influence of non-scientific values on the establishment of a scientific consensus comes from the field of artificial intelligence. In the 1960s, a controversy erupted between the proponents of symbolic processing—led by Marvin Minsky—and the proponents of neural nets—who had been led by the charismatic Frank Rosenblatt. The publication of a book by Minsky and Seymour Papert, which concluded that progress in neural networks faced insurmountable limitations, coincided with the unfortunate death of Rosenblatt and massive funding from the US Department of Defense through the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) for projects on symbolic processing. DARPA''s decision to ignore neural networks—because they could not foresee any immediate military applications—convinced other funding agencies to avoid the field and blocked research on neural nets for a decade. This has become known as the first artificial intelligence winter [3]. The military, in particular, has often had a major influence on setting the direction of scientific research. The atomic bomb, radar and the first computers are just some examples of how military interests drove scientific progress and its application.The traditional perception of science also supposes a gradual and linear accumulation of scientific knowledge. Whilst the gradual part remains undisputed, scientific progress is not linear. Theories are proposed, discussed, rejected, accepted, sometimes forgotten, rediscovered and reborn with modifications as part of an ever-changing network of scientific facts and knowledge. Gregor Mendel discovered the laws of inheritance in 1865, but his finding received scant attention until their rediscovery in the early 1900s by Carl Correns and Erich von Tschermak. Ignaz Semmelweis, a Hungarian obstetrician, developed the theory that puerperal fever or childbed fever is mainly transmitted by the poor hygiene of doctors before assisting in births. He observed that when doctors washed their hands with a chlorine solution before obstetric consultations, deaths in obstetrics wards were drastically reduced. The medical community ridiculed Semmelweis at the time, but the development of Louis Pasteur''s germ theory of disease eventually vindicated him [4].Another challenge to the traditional view of science is the claim that scientific facts are constructed. This does not necessarily imply that they are false: it acknowledges the process of independently conducted experiments, ‘trial and error'' approaches, collaborations and discussions, to establish a final consensus that then becomes scientific fact. Critics of constructivism claim that viewing scientific discovery this way opens the gate to non-scientific influences and arguments, thereby undermining factuality. However, without consensus on the importance of a discovery, no fact is sufficient to change or establish a scientific theory. In fact, classical peer review treats scientific discoveries as constructions essentially by taking apart the proposed fact, analysing the process of its determination and, based on the evidence, accepting or rejecting it.‘Social constructivism'' […] challenges the ‘traditional'' view of science: that it is an objective, experiment-based approach to collect evidence…Ultimately, then, it seems that social constructivism itself is not the sole or most important factor for changing the traditional view of science. Social, religious and ethical values have always influenced human endeavours, and science is no exception. Yet, there is one aspect of traditional science for which constructivism only has the role of an observer: public trust in scientific experts. Societies can resist the introduction of new technologies owing to their potential risks. Traditionally, the potential victims of such hazards—consumers, affected communities and the environment—had no input into either the risk-assessment process, or the decisions that were made on the basis of the assessment.The difficulty is that postmodern societies tend to perceive certain risks as greater compared with how they were viewed by modern or premodern societies, ostensibly and partly because of globalization and better communication [5]. As a result, the evaluation of risk increasingly takes into account political considerations. Each stakeholder inevitably defines risks and their acceptability according to their own agenda, and brings their own cadre of experts and evidence to support their claims. As such, the role of unbiased experts is undermined not only because they are similarly accused of having their own agenda, but also because the line between experts and non-experts is redrawn [5]. In addition, the internet and other communication technologies have unprecedentedly empowered non-expert users to broadcast their opinions. The emergence of so-called ‘pseudo-experts'', enabled by “the cult of the amateur” [6], further challenges the position of scientific experts. Trust is no longer a given for anyone, and even when people trust science, it is not lasting, and has to be earned for new information. This erosion of trust cannot be blamed entirely on the “cult of the amateur”. The German sociologist Ulrich Beck argued that when scientists make recommendations to society on how to deal with risks, they inevitably make assumptions that are embedded in cultural values, moving into a social and cultural sphere without assessing the public view of those values. Scientists thus presuppose a certain set of social and cultural values and judge everything that comes against that set as irrational [5].…without consensus on the importance of a discovery, no fact is sufficient to change or establish a scientific theoryRegardless of how trust in expertise was eroded, and how pseudo-experts have filled the gap, the main issue is how to assess the implications of scientific results and new technologies, and how to manage any risks that they entail. To gain and maintain trust, decision-making must consider stakeholder involvement and public opinion. However, when public participation attempts to accommodate an increasing number of stakeholders, it raises the difficult issue of who should be involved, either as part of the administrative process or as producers of knowledge [7,8]. An increasing number of participants in decision-making and an increasing amount of information can result in conflicting perspectives, different perceptions of facts and even half-truths or half-lies when information is not available, missing or not properly explained. There is no dominant perspective and all evidence seems subjective. This seems to be the nightmare scenario when ‘all truths are equal''.It is important to point out that the constructivist perspective of looking at the interactions between science and society is not an attempt to impose a particular world-view; it is merely an attempt to understand the mechanisms of these interactions. It attempts to explain why, for example, anti-GMO activists destroy experimental field trials without any scientific proof regarding the harm of such experiments. In addition, constructivism does not attempt to destroy the credibility of science, nor to overemphasize alternative knowledge, but to offer possibilities for wider participation in policy-making, especially in contentious cases when the lines between the public and experts are no longer clear [8]. In this situation, expert knowledge is not meant to be replaced by non-expert knowledge, but to be enriched by it.Nonetheless, the main question is whether scientific objectivity can prevail when science meets society. The answer should be yes. Even when several seemingly valid perspectives persist, objective facts are and should be the foundation of decisions taken. Scientific facts do matter and there are objective frameworks in place to prove or disprove the validity of information. Yet, in settling disputes, the decision must also be accountable to prevent loss of trust. By establishing frameworks for inclusive discussions and acknowledging the role of non-expert knowledge, either by indicating areas of public concern or by improving the communication of scientific facts, consent and thus support for the decision can be achieved.Moreover, scientific facts are important, but they are only part of an informational package. In particular, the choice of words and the style of writing can become more important than the factual content of a message. Scientists cannot communicate to the wider public using scientific jargon and then expect unconditional trust. People tend to mistrust things they cannot understand. To be part of a decision-making process, members of the public need access to scientific information presented in an understandable manner. The core issue is communication, or more specifically, translation: explaining facts and findings by considering the receiver and context, and adapting the message and language accordingly. Scientists must therefore translate their work. Equally important, they must do this proactively to take advantage of social constructivism and its view of science. By understanding how controversies around new scientific discoveries and scientific expertise arise, they can devise better communication strategies.…the internet and other communication technologies have unprecedentedly empowered non-expert users to broadcast their opinionsSome examples show how better interaction between science and society—such as the involvement of more stakeholders and the use of appropriate language in communication—can raise awareness and acceptability of previously contentious technologies. In Burkina Faso in 1999, Monsanto partnered with Africare to provide farmers with GM cotton to address pest resistance to pesticides and to increase yields. The plan was originally met with suspicion from the public and public research institutes, but the partners managed to build trust among the different stakeholders by providing transparent and correct information. The project started with a public–private partnership. By being open about their motives, including profit-making, and acknowledging and discussing any potential risks, the project gradually achieved the full support of the main partners [9]. Another challenge was the relationship between scientists and journalists. By using scientific communicators that were both open to dialogue and careful to maintain the discussion within scientific boundaries, the relationship with the press improved [10]. In this case, efforts to translate scientific knowledge included transparency of information and contextualizing its delivery, as well as an increasingly wider participation of stakeholders in the development and commercialization of GM cotton.…scientists[…]should consider proactively translating their research for a wider audience […] in an inclusive and contextualized mannerWhen the Philippines, the first Asian country to adopt a GM food, approved Bt maize, environmental NGOs and the Catholic Church opposed the crop with regular protests. These slowly dissipated as farmers gradually adopted Bt maize [11] and the reporting media focused less on sensationalist stories [12]. Between 2000 and 2009, media coverage contributed substantially to a mostly positive (41%) or neutral (38%) public perception of biotechnology in the Philippines [12]. Most newspaper reports focused on the public accountability of biotechnology governance and analysed the validity of scientific information, together with the way in which conflicts in biotechnology research were managed. Science writers translated scientific facts into language that the wider public could understand. In addition, sources in which the public placed trust—either scientists or environmentalists—were cited in the media, which helped to facilitate public discussion [12]. In this case, the efforts of science writers to provide balanced, well-informed coverage, as well as a platform for public discussions, effectively translated the scientific facts and improved public opinion of Bt maize.Constructivism is not a threat to science. It is a concept that looks at the components and the processes through which a scientific theory or fact emerges; it is not an alternative to these processes. In fact, scientists should consider embracing constructivism, not only to understand what happens with the products of their labour beyond the laboratory, but also to understand the forces that determine the fate of scientific developments. We live in a complex world in which individual actors are empowered through modern communication tools. This might make it more challenging to prove and maintain scientific objectivity, but it does not make it unnecessary. Public decision-making requires an objective fact base for all decisions concerning the use of scientific discoveries in society. If scientists want to prevent their messages from being misunderstood or hijacked for political purposes, they should consider proactively translating their research for a wider audience themselves, in an inclusive and contextualized manner.? Open in a separate windowMonica Racovita     

Conservation genetics: Linking science with practice

Conservation genetics is a well‐established scientific field. However, limited information transfer between science and practice continues to hamper successful implementation of scientific knowledge in conservation practice and management. To mitigate this challenge, we have established a conservation genetics community, which entails an international exchange‐and‐skills platform related to genetic methods and approaches in conservation management. First, it allows for scientific exchange between researchers during annual conferences. Second, personal contact between conservation professionals and scientists is fostered by organising workshops and by popularising knowledge on conservation genetics methods and approaches in professional journals in national languages. Third, basic information on conservation genetics has been made accessible by publishing an easy‐to‐read handbook on conservation genetics for practitioners. Fourth, joint projects enabled practitioners and scientists to work closely together from the start of a project in order to establish a tight link between applied questions and scientific background. Fifth, standardised workflows simplifying the implementation of genetic tools in conservation management have been developed. By establishing common language and trust between scientists and practitioners, all these measures help conservation genetics to play a more prominent role in future conservation planning and management.     

The Medawar Lecture 1998 is science dangerous?

The idea that science is dangerous is deeply embedded in our culture, particularly in literature, yet science provides the best way of understanding the world. Science is not the same as technology. In contrast to technology, reliable scientific knowledge is value-free and has no moral or ethical value. Scientists are not responsible for the technological applications of science; the very nature of science is that it is not possible to predict what will be discovered or how these discoveries could be applied. The obligation of scientists is to make public both any social implications of their work and its technological applications. A rare case of immoral science was eugenics. The image of Frankenstein has been turned by the media into genetic pornography, but neither cloning nor stem cells or gene therapy raise new ethical issues. There are no areas of research that are so socially sensitive that research into them should be proscribed. We have to rely on the many institutions of a democratic society: parliament, a free and vigorous press, affected groups and the scientists themselves. That is why programmes for the public understanding of science are so important. Alas, we still do not know how best to do this.     

How to work with children and animals: A guide for school‐based citizen science in wildlife research

Engaging school students in wildlife research through citizen science projects can be a win–win for scientists and educators. Not only does it provide a way for scientists to gather new data, but it can also contribute to science education and help younger generations become more environmentally aware. However, wildlife research can be challenging in the best of circumstances, and there are few guidelines available to help scientists create successful citizen science projects for school students. This paper explores the opportunities and challenges faced when developing school‐based citizen science projects in wildlife research by synthesising two sources of information. First, we conducted a small, school‐based citizen science project that investigated the effects of supplementary feeding on urban birds as a case study. Second, we reviewed the literature to develop a database of school‐based citizen science projects that address questions in wildlife ecology and conservation. Based on these activities, we present five lessons for scientists considering a school‐based citizen science project. Overall, we found that school‐based citizen science projects must be carefully designed to ensure reliable data are collected, students remain engaged, and the project is achievable under the logistical constraints presented by conducting wildlife research in a school environment. Ultimately, we conclude that school‐based citizen science projects can be a powerful way of collecting wildlife data while also contributing to the education and development of environmentally aware students.     

Safe and Sound? Scientists’ Understandings of Public Engagement in Emerging Biotechnologies

Science communication is a widely debated issue, particularly in the field of biotechnology. However, the views on the interface between science and society held by scientists who work in the field of emerging biotechnologies are currently insufficiently explored. Therefore filling this gap is one of the urgent desiderata in the further development of a dialogue-oriented model of science-public interaction. Against this background, this article addresses two main questions: (1) How do the persons who work in the field of science perceive the public and its involvement in science? (2) What preferred modes of communication are stressed by those scientists? This research is based on a set of interviews with full professors from the field of biotechnology with a special focus on synthetic biology. The results show that scientists perceive the public as holding a primarily risk-focused view of science. On the one hand, different forms of science communication are thereby either seen as a chance to improve the public acceptance of science in general and one field of research in particular. On the other hand, the exchange with the public is seen as a duty because the whole of society is affected by scientific innovation. Yet, some of the stakeholders’ views discussed here conflict with debates on public engagement in technological innovation.     

A Practical Guide for Improving Transparency and Reproducibility in Neuroimaging Research

Recent years have seen an increase in alarming signals regarding the lack of replicability in neuroscience, psychology, and other related fields. To avoid a widespread crisis in neuroimaging research and consequent loss of credibility in the public eye, we need to improve how we do science. This article aims to be a practical guide for researchers at any stage of their careers that will help them make their research more reproducible and transparent while minimizing the additional effort that this might require. The guide covers three major topics in open science (data, code, and publications) and offers practical advice as well as highlighting advantages of adopting more open research practices that go beyond improved transparency and reproducibility.     

Science funding and infrastructures in Europe

European science in crisis. Scared? Then read on; you should be. I argue that we cannot sit back for much longer and watch our best scientists emigrate to the USA for the most productive part of their career, and that European scientists should not tolerate a funding system that neither rewards an investigator's brilliance nor the innovative nature of their research. The EC Framework Programme is due for a face lift: scientists should wield the scalpel this time.     

Focus group interviews examining attitudes toward medical research among the Japanese: a qualitative study

Objectives: the purpose of ths study is to explore laypersons' attitudes towards and experiences of medical research, and to compare them with those of physicians in Japan. Designs and Participants: fourteen Japanese adults from the general public and seven physicians participated in one of three focus interviews. Setting: Osaka, Japan. Results: trust and distrust in the physician by whom the participants were invited to participate in research played a considerable role in their decisions about participation. That the participants felt an obligation to participate was also expressed. The lay participants perceived medical research as something entirely outside of their world. A greater willingness to volunteer for research was expressed if there were direct benefits to themselves or their families. Research methods such as use of placebos, double blinds, and randomisations seemed to cause negative attitudes to medical research. All physicians were convinced of the need for medical research, including double-blinded randomised control trials, and its significant role in medical progress. Most physicians thought that the greater awareness of the need for medical research in the community and a better understanding of the psychology of potential research participants were necessary and urgent. Conclusions: there is a good possibility that the lay public and medical professionals have sharply different beliefs about and attitudes towards every aspect of medical research. Building up a better and equal patient-doctor relationship based on trust is a key issue in medical research, and it is mandatory to fill the gap in perception regarding medical research between them through fully informed debates.     

Environmental degradation and the ambiguous social role of science and technology

Conclusion Recent anxieties about the deterioration of the global environment have had the effect of intensifying the ambiguity that surrounds the social roles of scientists and engineers. This has happened not merely, as suggested at the outset, because the environmental crisis has made their roles more conspicuous. Nor is it merely because recent disasters have alerted us to new, or hitherto unrecognized, social consequences of using the latest science-based technologies. What also requires recognition is that ideas about the social role of modern science and engineering are embedded in, hence mediated by, larger views of the world. Within such American worldviews, moreover, the status of science and engineering is closely bound up with their perceived effect upon the environment.In the dominant culture, accordingly, the respect given to scientists and engineers is in large measure dependent on their ability to play the central role assigned to them in the historical narrative about progress. As the ostensible heroes of that popular story, they are expected to lead the way in realizing the promise of prosperity and general well-being. The environmental crisis surely has diminished the credibility of that story, thereby causing the social role of science and engineering to seem more dubious — more ambiguous. To be sure, the crisis also may have the effect, for very different reasons, of increasing the power and responsibility of organized science. But the late twentieth-century task of damage control cannot possibly elicit anything like the respect accorded to organized science by the earlier belief in progress.It also is important to recall, finally, that the narrative of progress itself has undergone a disillusioning transformation. The early Enlightenment version of the story depicted scientists and engineers working in the service of a social and political ideal that all people could share. But the later technocratic concept of progress, with its sterile instrumentalist notion of advancing the power of science-based technology as an end in itself, is far less likely to inspire trust. Its patent inadequacies have had the effect of enhancing the appeal, if only by contrast, of the seemingly anti-science ideologies of pastoralism and primitivism. All of which might be taken to suggest that if the scientific and engineering professions want to recover some of the respect and status they once had, they would be well advised to join with sympathetic humanists and social scientists in recuperating some of the idealism that the project of modern science formerly derived from its place within the ideology of progress. That might entail the sacrifice of their technocratic posture of neutrality, dissociating themselves from people and institutions responsible for environmental degradation, and their help in formulating a new concept — which is to say, new criteria — of progress to which they might commit themselves. A primary test of any proposed social policy under this new dispensation surely would be whether it would improve, or at a minimum protect, the life-enhancing capacities of the global ecosystem. *** DIRECT SUPPORT *** A8402064 00011 *** DIRECT SUPPORT *** A8402064 00012 *** DIRECT SUPPORT *** A8402064 00013     

Professionalization as a governance strategy for synthetic biology

This article considers professionalization as a governance strategy for synthetic biology, reporting on social science interviews done with scientists, science journal editors, members of science advisory boards and authors of nongovernmental policy reports on synthetic biology. After summarizing their observations about the potential advantages and disadvantages of the professionalization of synthetic biology, we analyze professionalization as a strategy that overcomes dichotomies found in the current debates about synthetic biology governance, specifically “top down” versus “bottom up” governance and scientific fact versus public values. Professionalization combines community and state, fact and value. Like all governance options, professionalization has limitations, particularly regarding war and peace. It is best conceptualized as potentially part of a wider range of governance mechanisms working in concert: a “web of prevention”.