Research in the public understanding of science for and against the public deficit model often is based on assumptions of individualism and lay knowledge. That approach to the public is contrasted with a second and third concept of the public. Subordinate networks in diverse social fields can form counterpublics when they claim to represent the general public benefit better than the official constructions of the public and public interest that are articulated by the spokespersons of the dominant agents of the respective social fields. Among the counterpublics are those formed by subordinate networks in the scientific field. Two cases of scientific counterpublics, their relations with subordinate networks in other social fields, and their alternative concepts of public good, are explored in an effort to develop a broader understanding of the public and publics. Two policy implications, targeted funding pools and the “dissensus conference,” are discussed as possible policy innovations that could be developed in addition to deliberative and consultative approaches such as the consensus conference.
AlbertM. (2003) “Universities and the Market Economy: The Differential Impact on Knowledge Production in Sociology and Economics,” Higher Education45: 147–82.
2.
AmsterdamskaO. (1987) “Medical and Biological Constraints: Early Research on Bacteriology,” Social Studies of Science17(4): 657–87.
3.
AmsterdamskaO. (1991) “Stabilizing Instability: The Controversy over Cyclogenic Theories of Bacterial Variation during the Interwar Period,” Journal of the History of Biology24(2): 191–222.
4.
AsenR.BrouwerD. (eds) (2001) Counterpublics and the State. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
5.
BabbS. (2001) Managing Mexico: Economists from Nationalism to Neoliberalism. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
6.
BourdieuP. (1981) The Political Ontology of Martin Heidegger. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
7.
BourdieuP. (1993) Sociology in Question. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
8.
BourdieuP. (1997) Pascalian Meditations. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
9.
BourdieuP. (2001) Science of Science and Reflexivity. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
10.
CobbS.WeinbergD. (1993) “The Importance of Import Substitution in Regional Economic Impact Analysis: Empirical Estimates from Two Cincinnati Area Events,” Economic Development Quarterly7(3): 282–6.
11.
CollinsH. (2007) Rethinking Expertise. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
12.
DietrichH.SchibeciR. (2003) “Beyond Public Perceptions of Gene Technology: Community Participation in Public Policy in Australia,” Public Understanding of Science12(4): 381–401.
13.
DurantD. (2008) “Accounting for Expertise: Wynne and the Autonomy of the Lay Public Actor,” Public Understanding of Science17(1): 5–20.
14.
FraserN. (1997) Justice Interruptus: Critical Reflections on the “Postsocialist” Condition. New York: Routledge.
15.
FrickelS.MooreK. (2005) The New Political Sociology of Science: Institutions, Networks, and Power. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.
16.
HabermasJ. (1989) The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry into a Category of Bourgeois Society. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
17.
HabermasJ. (1992) “Further Reflections on the Public Sphere,” in CalhounC. (ed.) Habermas and the Public Sphere, pp. 421–61. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
18.
HardingS. (1998) Is Science Multicultural? Postcolonialisms, Feminisms, and Epistemologies. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
19.
HessD. (1997) Can Bacteria Cause Cancer? Alternative Medicine Confronts Big Science. New York: New York University Press.
20.
HessD. (2007) Alternative Pathways in Science and Industry: Activism, Innovation, and the Environment in the United States. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
21.
HessD. (2009a) Localist Movements in a Global Economy: Sustainability, Justice, and Urban Development in the United States. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
22.
HessD. (2009b) “The Potentials and Limitations of Civil Society Research: Getting Undone Science Done,” Sociological Inquiry79(3): 306–27.
23.
HessD. (2010) “Environmental Reform Organizations and Undone Science in the United States: Exploring the Environmental, Health, and Safety Implications of Nanotechnology,” Science as Culturein press.
24.
IrwinA. (2001) “Constructing the Scientific Citizen: Science and Democracy in the Biosciences,” Public Understanding of Science10(1): 1–18.
25.
JacobsJ. (1969) The Economy of Cities. New York: Vintage Books.
26.
JacobsJ. (1984) Cities and the Wealth of Nations. New York: Random House.
27.
KatzE.SolomonF.MeeW.LovelR. (2009) “Evolving Scientific Research Governance in Australia: A Case Study of Engaging Interested Publics in Nanotechnology Research,” Public Understanding of Science18(5): 531–45.
28.
KinchyA.KleinmanD.AutryR. (2008) “Against Free Markets, Against Science? Regulating the Socio-economic Effects of Biotechnology,” Rural Sociology73(2): 147–80.
29.
KleinmanD.KinchyA. (2003) “Why Ban Bovine Growth Hormone? Science, Social Welfare, and the Divergent Biotech Policy Landscapes in Europe and the United States,” Science as Culture12(3): 375–414.
30.
KleinmanD.KinchyA. (2007) “Against the Neoliberal Steamroller? The Biosafety Protocol and the Social Regulation of Agricultural Biotechnology,” Agriculture and Human Values24(2): 195–206.
31.
KosseyJ. (1996) “Economic Restructuring and the Restructuring of Economic Development Practice: A New York Perspective, 1985–1995,” Economic Development Quarterly10(4): 300–14.
32.
LezaunJ.SonerydL. (2007) “Consulting Citizens: Technologies of Elicitation and the Mobility of Publics,” Public Understanding of Science16(3): 279–97.
33.
MitchellS. (2009) “The Corporate Co-op of Local,” East Bay Express8July. URL (consulted 5 November 2009): www.eastbayexpress.com
34.
MonmaneyT. (1993) “Marshall’s Hunch,” The New Yorker20September, pp. 64ff.
35.
MooreK. (2008) Disrupting Science: Social Movements, American Scientists, and the Political of the Military, 1945–1975. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
36.
MorrisD. (1982) Self-Reliant Cities: Energy and the Transformation of Urban America. San Francisco: Sierra Club.
37.
MossR. (1989) The Cancer Industry. New York: Paragon.
38.
PerskyJ.RanneyD.WiewelW. (1993) “Import Substitution and Local Economic Development,” Economic Development Quarterly7(1): 18–29.
39.
PolanyiK. (1994) The Great Transformation. New York: Rinehart.
40.
PortesA.RobertsB. (2005) “The Free-Market City: Latin American Urbanization in the Years of the Neoliberal Experiment,” Studies in Comparative International Development40(1): 43–82.
41.
PowellM.KleinmanD. (2008) “Building Citizen Capacities for Participation in Nanotechnology Decision-Making: The Democratic Virtues of the Consensus Conference Model,” Public Understanding of Science17(3): 329–48.
42.
PowerT. (1996) Lost Landscapes and Failed Economies: The Search for a Value of Place. Washington, DC: Island Press.
43.
ScottP.RichardsE.MartinB. (1990) “Captives of Controversy: The Myth of the Neutral Social Researcher in Contemporary Scientific Controversies,” Science, Technology, and Human Values15(4): 474–94.
44.
ShumanM. (2006) The Small-Mart Revolution: How Local Businesses are Beating the Global Competition. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.
45.
StiglitzJ. (2002) Globalization and its Discontents. New York: W.W. Norton.
46.
WarnerM. (2002) Publics and Counterpublics. New York: Zone Books.
47.
Wuerthele-Caspe LivingstonV. (1972) Cancer: A New Breakthrough. Los Angeles: Nash Publishing.
48.
WynneB. (1992) “Misunderstood Misunderstanding: Social Identities and Public Uptake of Science,” Public Understanding of Science1(3): 281–304.
49.
WynneB. (2005) “Risk as Globalizing ‘Democratic’ Discourse? Framing Subjects and Citizens,” in LeachM.ScoonesI.WynneB. (eds) Science and Citizens: Globalization and the Challenge of Engagement, pp. 66–82. London: Zed.
50.
WynneB. (2007a) “Public Engagement as a Means of Restoring Public Trust in Science: Hitting the Notes, but Missing the Music?,” Community Genetics9(3): 211–20.
51.
WynneB. (2007b) “Risky Delusions: Misunderstanding Science and Misperforming Publics in the GE Crops Issue,” in TaylorI. (ed.) Genetically Engineered Crops: Interim Policies, Uncertain Legislation, pp. 341–72. New York: Haworth Food and Agricultural Products Press.
52.
WynneB. (2008) “Elephants in the Rooms where Publics Encounter ‘Science’? A Response to Darrin Durant, ‘Accounting for Expertise: Wynne and the Autonomy of the Lay Public,’” Public Understanding of Science17(1): 21–33.
53.
YearleyS. (2000) “Making Systematic Sense of Public Discontents with Expert Knowledge: Two Analytical Approaches and a Case Study,” Public Understanding of Science9(2): 105–22.
