Arguments for public involvement in science and technology are often based on ideas of developing a more capable public and the assumed effects this may have for science. However, such a relationship is yet to be sufficiently explored and recent work indicates that a more involved public may have counterintuitive effects. Using nationally representative survey data for the UK and Northern Ireland, the effects of the public’s own beliefs about involvement are explored. Developing the concept of “belief in public efficacy,” findings suggest those who believe that the public might be able to affect the course of decision making have less approving attitudes towards future applications of genetic science; however, an individual’s political efficacy does not significantly influence these attitudes. Furthermore, political efficacy and belief in public efficacy have some distinct and opposing relationships with the principles of governance people prefer. Overall, findings provide support for suggestions that it is simplistic to consider increasing public involvement as a way of increasing the approval of risky new technologies.
Allen, E.E. and Bassett, D.R. ( 2008) "Listen Up! The Need for Public Engagement in Nanoscale Science and Technology," Nanotechnology Law & Business5(4): 429-39.
2.
Bandura, A. ( 1997) Self-efficacy: The Exercise of Control. New York: Freeman.
3.
Bandura, A. ( 2000) "Exercise of Human Agency through Collective Efficacy ," Current Directions in Psychological Science9: 75-8.
4.
Bang, H. ( 2005) "Among Everyday Makers and Expert Citizens," in J. Newman (ed.) Remaking Governance: Peoples, Politics and the Public Sphere, pp. 159-78. Bristol: The Policy Press.
5.
Barnett, J., Cooper, H. and Senior, V. ( 2007) "Belief in Public Efficacy, Trust, and Attitudes toward Modern Genetic Science," Risk Analysis27(4): 921-33.
6.
Barnett, J., Timotijevic, L., Vassallo, M. and Shepherd, R. ( 2008) "Precautionary Advice about Mobile Phones: Public Understandings and Intended Responses," Journal of Risk Research11(4): 525-40.
7.
Bodmer, W. ( 1985) The Public Understanding of Science. London: Royal Society.
8.
Bromley, C., Curtice, J. and Seyd, B. ( 2001) "Political Engagement, Trust and Constitutional Reform ," in A. Park et al. (eds) British Social Attitudes: The 18th Report, pp. 199-225. London : SAGE.
9.
DEFRA (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs) ( 2001) Managing Radioactive Waste Safely. London: Stationery Office.
10.
Department for Business Innovation and Skills (n.d.) "Science and Society Strategy for the UK: Science and Trust Expert Group," URL (consulted September 2009): http://interactive.bis.gov.uk/scienceandsociety/site/science-and-trust/
11.
DTI (Department of Trade and Industry) (2003 ) GM Nation? The Findings of the Public Debate. London: Stationery Office.
12.
Durant, J.R., Evans, G.A. and Thomas, G.P. ( 1989) "The Public Understanding of Science," Nature340(6228): 11-14.
13.
Earle, T.C. and Cvetkovich, G.T. ( 1995) Social Trust: Toward a Cosmopolitan Society. Westport, CT: Praeger.
14.
Einsiedel, E.F. ( 2002) "Assessing a Controversial Medical Technology: Canadian Public Consultations on Xenotransplantation," Public Understanding of Science11: 315-31.
15.
European Commission (2005) Europeans, Science and Technology. Special Eurobarometer 224/Wave 63.1.
16.
Fernandez-Ballesteros, R., Diez-Nicolas, J., Caprara, G.V., Barbaranelli, C. and Bandura, A. ( 2002) "Determinants and Structural Relation of Personal Efficacy to Collective Efficacy," Applied Psychology: An International Review51(1): 107-25.
17.
Field, A. ( 2005) Discovering Statistics Using SPSS, 2nd edn. London: SAGE .
18.
Garson, G.D. (n.d.) "Factor Analysis," in Statnotes: Topics in Multivariate Analysis. URL (consulted July 2008): http://www.2.chass.ncsu.edu/garson/pa765/statnote.htm
19.
Gaskell, G., Allum, N., Wagner, W., Hviid Nielsen, T., Jelsoe, E., Kohring, M. and Bauer, M. ( 2001) "In the Public Eye: Representations of Biotechnology in Europe," in G. Gaskell and M. Bauer (eds) Biotechnology 1996-2000: The Years of Controversy, pp. 56-79. London: Science Museum Publications.
20.
Gaskell, G., Allum, N., Bauer, M.W., Jackson, J., Howard, S. and Lindsey, N. ( 2003) "Climate Change for Biotechnology? UK Public Opinion 1991-2002 ," AgbioForum6(1&2): 1-12.
21.
Gaskell, G., Allum, N., Wagner, W., Kronberger, N., Torgersen, H., Hampel, J. and Bardes, J. ( 2004) "GM Foods and the Misperception of Risk Perception ," Risk Analysis24(1): 185-94.
22.
Gaskell, G., Einsiedel, E., Hallman, W., Priest, S., Jackson, J. and Olsthoorn, J. ( 2005) "Social Values and the Governance of Science," Science310(5756): 1908-9.
23.
Hargreaves, I. ( 2000) Who’s Misunderstanding Whom? An Inquiry into the Relationship between Science and the Media. Swindon : Economic and Social Research Council.
24.
HM Government (2005) "Government Response to the Council for Science and Technology Report, Policy through Dialogue," URL (consulted 13 July 2008): www.cst.gov.uk
25.
House of Lords (2000) Science and Society, 3rd report. London: HMSO.
26.
Jowell, R., Curtice, J., Park, A., Brook, L., Thomson, K. and Bryson, C. (eds) (1997) British Social Attitudes: The 14th Report. The End of Conservative Values?Aldershot: Ashgate.
Li, Y. and Marsh, D. ( 2008) "New Forms of Political Participation: Searching for Expert Citizens and Everyday Makers," British Journal of Political Science38: 247-72.
29.
Marris, C., Wynne, B., Simmons, P. and Weldon, S. ( 2001) Public Perceptions of Agricultural Biotechnologies in Europe: Final Report of the PABE Research Project. Commission of European Communities FAIR CT98-3844 (DG12-SSMI).
30.
Miller, J.D., Pardo, R. and Niwa, F. ( 1997) Public Perceptions of Science and Technology: A Comparative Study of the European Union, the United States, Japan and Canada . Bilbao: Fundacion BBV.
31.
Mori (2005) Science in Society. Office of Science and Technology, Department of Trade and Industry. London: Stationery Office.
32.
Nelkin, D. and Lindee, M.S. ( 1995) The DNA Mystique: The Gene as a Cultural Icon. New York: W.H. Freeman and Company.
33.
OST (Office of Science and Technology) & Wellcome Trust (2001) "Science and the Public: A Review of Science Communication and Public Attitudes toward Science in Britain," Public Understanding of Science10: 315-30.
34.
People Science & Policy Ltd/ TNS (2008a) "Public Attitudes to Science 2008: A Survey. Report to Research Councils UK and Department for Innovation, Universities & Skills," URL (consulted 26 July 2008): http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/sis/pas.htm
35.
People Science & Policy Ltd/ TNS (2008b) "Public Attitudes to Science 2008: A Guide. Report to Research Councils UK and Department for Innovation, Universities & Skills," URL (consulted 26 July 2008): http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/sis/pas.htm
36.
Petts, J. ( 2008) "Public Engagement to Build Trust: False Hopes? ," Journal of Risk Research11(6): 821-35.
37.
Pidgeon, N., Poortinga, W. and Walls, J. ( 2007) "Scepticism, Reliance and Risk Management Institutions: Towards a Conceptual Model of Critical Trust," in M. Siegrist, T. C. Earle and H. Gutscher (eds) Trust in Cooperative Risk Management, pp. 117-42. London: Earthscan .
38.
Poortinga, W. and Pidgeon, N.F. ( 2003) "Exploring the Dimensionality of Trust in Risk Regulation ," Risk Analysis23(5): 961-72.
39.
Poortinga, W. and Pidgeon, N.F. ( 2004) "Trust, the Asymmetry Principle, and the Role of Prior Beliefs," Risk Analysis24(6): 1475-86.
40.
Rowe, G., Horlick-Jones, T., Walls, J. and Pidgeon, N.F. ( 2005) "Difficulties in Evaluating Public Engagement Initiatives: Reflections on Evaluating the UK GM Nation Debate about Transgenic Crops," Public Understanding of Science14: 331-52.
41.
Simmons, R. and Birchall, J. ( 2005) "A Joined-up Approach to User Participation in Public Services: Strengthening the ‘Participation Chain,’" Social Policy & Administration39: 260-83.
42.
Springer, A., Mattas, K., Papastefanou, G. and Tsioumanis, A. ( 2002) "Comparing Consumer Attitudes towards Genetically Modified Food in Europe," Paper for the Association of Agricultural Economists 2002 International Congress.
43.
Sturgis, P. and Allum, N. ( 2004) "Science in Society: Re-evaluating the Deficit Model of Public Attitudes," Public Understanding of Science13(1): 55-75.
44.
Sturgis, P., Cooper, H. and Fife-Schaw, C. ( 2005) "Attitudes to Biotechnology: Estimating the Opinions of a Better Informed Public," New Genetics and Society24(1): 34-58.
45.
Touraine, A. ( 1985) "The Crisis of Progress," in M. Bauer (ed.) Resistance to New Technology: Nuclear Power, Information Technology, Biotechnology, pp. 45-56. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.
46.
Walls, J., Pidgeon, N., Weyman, A. and Horlick Jones, T. ( 2004) "Critical Trust: Understanding Lay Perceptions of Health and Safety Regulation," Health, Risk and Society6(2): 133-50.
47.
Wilsdon, J. and Willis, R. ( 2004) See-through Science: Why Public Engagement Needs to Move Upstream. London: Demos .
