Scientific experts can play an important role in decision-making surrounding policy for technical and value-laden issues, often in contexts that directly affect lay publics. Yet little is known about what characterizes scientific experts who want lay public involvement in decision-making. In this study, we examine how synthetic biology experts’ perceptions of risks, benefits, and ambivalence for synthetic biology relate to views of lay publics, deference to scientific authority, and regulations. We analyzed survey data of researchers in the United States, who published academic articles relating to synthetic biology from 2000 to 2015. Scientific experts who see less risk and are more deferent to scientific authority appear to favor a more closed system in which regulations are sufficient, citizens should not be involved, and scientists know best. Conversely, scientific experts who see more potential for risk and see the public as bringing a valuable perspective appear to favor a more open, inclusive system.
AkinHCacciatoreMAYeoSKBrossardDScheufeleDAXenosMA (2020) Publics’ support for novel and established science issues linked to perceived knowledge and deference to science. International Journal of Public Opinion Research33: 422–431.
2.
AkinHRoseKMScheufeleDASimis-WilkinsonMBrossardDXenosMA, et al. (2017) Mapping the landscape of public attitudes on synthetic biology. Bioscience67(3): 290–300.
3.
AndersonAAScheufeleDABrossardDCorleyEA (2011) The role of media and deference to scientific authority in cultivating trust in sources of information about emerging technologies. International Journal of Public Opinion Research24(2): 225–237.
4.
BaoLKrauseNMCaliceMNScheufeleDAWirzCDBrossardD, et al. (2022) Whose AI? How different publics think about AI and its social impacts. Computers in Human Behavior130: 107182.
5.
BeaudrieCEHSatterfieldTKandlikarMHarthornBH (2013) Expert views on regulatory preparedness for managing the risks of nanotechnologies. PLoS ONE8(11): e80250.
6.
BeauducelAHerzbergPY (2006) On the performance of maximum likelihood versus means and variance adjusted weighted least squares estimation in CFA. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal13(2): 186–203.
7.
BeckU (1992) Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
8.
BesleyJCNisbetM (2013) How scientists view the public, the media and the political process. Public Understanding of Science22(6): 644–659.
9.
BesleyJCKramerVLPriestSH (2008) Expert opinion on nanotechnology: Risks, benefits, and regulation. Journal of Nanoparticle Research10(4): 549–558.
10.
BohmanJRehgW (eds) (1997) Deliberative Democracy: Essays on Reason and Politics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
11.
BrossardDNisbetMC (2007) Deference to scientific authority among a low information public: Understanding U.S. opinion on agricultural biotechnology. International Journal of Public Opinion Research19(1): 24–52.
12.
BrossardDBelluckPGouldFWirzCD (2019) Promises and perils of gene drives: Navigating the communication of complex, post-normal science. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences116: 7692–7697.
13.
BrownMB (2015) Politicizing science: Conceptions of politics in science and technology studies. Social Studies of Science45(1): 3–30.
14.
CarloneHBJohnsonA (2007) Understanding the science experiences of successful women of color: Science identity as an analytic lens. Journal of Research in Science Teaching44(8): 1187–1218.
15.
CollingridgeDReeveC (1986) Science Speaks to Power: The Role of Experts in Policy Making. New York: St. Martin’s Press.
16.
CollinsHMEvansR (2002) The third wave of science studies: Studies of expertise and experience. Social Studies of Science32(2): 235–296.
17.
CollinsHMWeinelMEvansR (2010) The politics and policy of the third wave: New technologies and society. Critical Policy Studies4(2): 185–201.
18.
CorleyEAKimYScheufeleDA (2013) The current status and future direction of nanotechnology regulations: A view from nano-scientists. The Review of Policy Research30(5): 488–511.
19.
CorleyEAScheufeleDAHuQ (2009) Of risks and regulations: How leading US nanoscientists form policy stances about nanotechnology. Journal of Nanoparticle Research11(7): 1573–1585.
20.
EpsteinS (1995) The construction of lay expertise: AIDS activism and the forging of credibility in the reform of clinical trials. Science, Technology & Human Values20(4): 408–437.
21.
FischerF (1990) Technocracy and the Politics of Expertise. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
22.
FuntowiczSORavetzJR (1993) The emergence of post-normal science. In: Von SchombergR (ed.) Science, Politics and Morality: Scientific Uncertainty and Decision Making. Berlin: Springer, pp. 85–123.
23.
HanssonSO (2010) Risk: Objective or subjective, facts or values. Journal of Risk Research13(2): 231–238.
24.
HilgartnerS (2000) Science on Stage: Expert Advice as Public Drama. Redwood City, CA: Stanford University Press.
25.
HoSSScheufeleDACorleyEA (2011) Value predispositions, mass media, and attitudes toward nanotechnology: The interplay of public and experts. Science Communication33(2): 167–200.
26.
HolbertRLStephensonMT (2002) Structural equation modeling in the communication sciences, 1995–2000. Human Communication Research28(4): 531–551.
27.
HooperDCoughlanJMullenM (2008) Structural equation modelling: Guidelines for determining model fit. Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods6: 53–60.
28.
HorstM (2013) Learning from discomfort: Science communication experiments between diffusion, dialogue and emergence. In: PhillipsLKristiansenMVehviläinenMGunnarssonE (eds) Knowledge and Power in Collaborative Research. Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 30–50.
29.
HowellELNepperJBrossardDXenosMAScheufeleDA (2019) Engagement present and future: Graduate student and faculty perceptions of social media and the role of the public in science engagement. PLoS ONE14(5): e0216274.
30.
HowellELScheufeleDABrossardDXenosMAKwonSYoutieJ, et al. (2020a) Scientists’ and the publics’ views of synthetic biology. In: TrumpBDCummingsCLKuzmaJLinkovI (eds) Synthetic Biology 2020: Frontiers in Risk Analysis and Governance (Risk, Systems and Decisions). Cham: Springer, pp. 371–387.
31.
HowellELWirzCDScheufeleDABrossardDXenosMA (2020b) Deference and decision-making in science and society: How deference to scientific authority goes beyond confidence in science and scientists to become authoritarianism. Public Understanding of Science29(8): 800–818.
32.
JasanoffS (1996) Beyond epistemology: Relativism and engagement in the politics of science. Social Studies of Science26(2): 393–418.
33.
JasanoffS (2009) The Fifth Branch: Science Advisers as Policymakers. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
34.
JasanoffS (2016) The Ethics of Invention: Technology and the Human Future. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.
KaplanKJ (1972) On the ambivalence-indifference problem in attitude theory and measurement: A suggested modification of the semantic differential technique. Psychological Bulletin77(5): 361.
37.
KimYCorleyEAScheufeleDA (2017) Nanoscientists and political involvement: Which characteristics make scientists more likely to support engagement in political debates?Science and Public Policy44(3): 317–327.
38.
KleinkeK (2017) Multiple imputation under violated distributional assumptions: A systematic evaluation of the assumed robustness of predictive mean matching. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics42(4): 371–404.
39.
KrimskyS (1982) Beyond technocracy: New routes for citizen involvement in social risk assessment. Journal of Voluntary Action Research11(1): 8–23.
40.
LarssonSJanssonMBoholmÅ (2019) Expert stakeholders’ perception of nanotechnology: Risk, benefit, knowledge, and regulation. Journal of Nanoparticle Research21(3): 1–17.
41.
LiCH (2016) Confirmatory factor analysis with ordinal data: Comparing robust maximum likelihood and diagonally weighted least squares. Behavior Research Methods48(3): 936–949.
42.
McArdleJJKadlecKM (2013) Structural equation models. In: LittleTD (ed.) Oxford Handbook of Quantitative Methods. Vol. 2. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 295–337.
43.
MarrisCLangfordIHO’riordanT (1998) A quantitative test of the cultural theory of risk perceptions: Comparison with the psychometric paradigm. Risk Analysis18(5): 635–647.
44.
MolJMBotzenWJWBlaschJEDe MoelH (2020) Insights into flood risk misperceptions of homeowners in the Dutch river delta. Risk Analysis40(7): 1450–1468.
45.
Mueller-HerbstJMXenosMAScheufeleDABrossardD (2020) Saw it on Facebook: The role of social media in facilitating science issue awareness. Social Media + Society6(2): 2056305120930412.
46.
NelkinD (1975) The political impact of technical expertise. Social Studies of Science5(1): 35–54.
47.
OreskesNConwayEM (2011) Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming. New York: Bloomsbury Publishing.
48.
PidgeonNFPoortingaWRoweGHorlick-JonesTWallsJO’RiordanT (2005) Using surveys in public participation processes for risk decision making: The case of the 2003 British GM nation? Public debate. Risk Analysis25(2): 467–479.
49.
PoortingaWPidgeonN (2007) Public perceptions of agricultural biotechnology in the UK: The case of genetically modified food. In: BrossardDShanahanJNesbittTC (eds) The Public, the Media and Agricultural Biotechnology. Oxon: CAB International, pp. 21–56.
50.
PowellMC (2007) New risk or old risk, high risk or no risk? How scientists’ standpoints shape their nanotechnology risk frames. Health, Risk & Society9(2): 173–190.
51.
RoseKMHowellELScheufeleDABrossardDXenosMAShapiraP, et al. (2018) The values of synthetic biology: Researcher views of their field and participation in public engagement. Bioscience68(10): 782–791.
52.
RosseelY (2012) Lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling and more. Version 0.5–12 (BETA). Journal of Statistical Software48(2): 1–36.
53.
ShapiraPKwonSYoutieJ (2017) Tracking the emergence of synthetic biology. Scientometrics112(3): 1439–1469.
54.
SiegristMGutscherH (2006) Flooding risks: A comparison of lay people’s perceptions and expert’s assessments in Switzerland. Risk Analysis26(4): 971–979.
55.
SilvaCLJenkins-SmithHC (2007) The precautionary principle in context: U.S. and E.U. scientists’ prescriptions for policy in the face of uncertainty. Social Science Quarterly88(3): 640–664.
56.
SkarlatidouAChengTHaklayM (2012) What do lay people want to know about the disposal of nuclear waste? A mental model approach to the design and development of an online risk communication. Risk Analysis32(9): 1496–1511.
57.
SlovicPFischhoffBLichtensteinS (1986) The psychometric study of risk perception. In: CovelloVTMenkesJMumpowerJL (eds) Risk Evaluation and Management. Berlin: Springer, pp. 3–24.
58.
SuLY-FCacciatoreMABrossardDCorleyEAScheufeleDAXenosMA (2015) Attitudinal gaps: How experts and lay audiences form policy attitudes toward controversial science. Science and Public Policy43(2): 196–206.
59.
SuryanarayananSKleinmanDL (2013) Be(e)coming experts: The controversy over insecticides in the honey bee colony collapse disorder. Social Studies of Science43: 215–240.
60.
ThompsonMMZannaMPGriffinDW (1995) Let’s not be indifferent about (attitudinal) ambivalence. Attitude Strength: Antecedents and Consequences4: 361–386.
61.
Van HarreveldFNohlenHUSchneiderIK (2015) The ABC of ambivalence: Affective, behavioral, and cognitive consequences of attitudinal conflict. In: ZannaMP (ed.) Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. Amsterdam: Elsevier, pp. 285–324.
62.
WirzCDScheufeleDABrossardD (2020) Societal debates about emerging genetic technologies: Toward a science of public engagement. Environmental Communication14(7): 859–864.
63.
WynneB (1992) Misunderstood misunderstanding: Social identities and public uptake of science. Public Understanding of Science1: 281–304.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
