Communicative Aspects of the Public-Science Relationship Explored

Abstract

Communication and the way this communication process is perceived by different publics is part of the public-science relationship. This article presents qualitative data with respect to biotechnology and genomics communication and identifies similarities and differences among publics in various roles. Focus group discussions were conducted with members of the general public, active consumers, patients, and genomics experts in the Netherlands. The analysis demonstrated that these publics prefer varied communication approaches that depend on their particular roles, with varying possibilities of participation. In all cases, transparency and openness as basic communication elements have to be fulfilled to gain trust from these publics.

Keywords

public-science relationship public participation focus group discussion communication process genomics

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Allum

Sturgis

Tabourazi

Brunton-Smith

(2008). Science knowledge and attitudes across cultures: A meta-analysis. Public Understanding of Science, 17, 35-54.

Arnstein

S. R.

(1969). A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 35, 216-224.

Bates

B. R.

Lynch

J. A.

Bevan

J. L.

Condit

C. M.

(2005). Warranted concerns, warranted outlooks: A focus group study of public understandings of genetic research. Social Science & Medicine, 60, 331-344.

Bauer

M. W.

Allum

Miller

(2007). What can we learn from 25 years of PUS survey research? Liberating and expanding the agenda. Public Understanding of Science, 16, 79-95.

Bauer

M. W.

Gaskell

(Eds.). (2002). Biotechnology: The making of a global controversy (1st ed.). London, England: Cambridge University Press in association with the Science Museum London.

Bloor

Frankland

Thomas

Robson

(2001). Focus groups in social research. London, England: Sage.

De Loor

Midden

C. J. H.

Hisschemöller

(1992). Publieksoordelen over nieuwe technologie. De bruikbaarheid van publieksonderzoek voor technologiebeleid [Public opinions about new technology. The usability of public surveys for technology policy]. The Hague, Netherlands: NOTA.

Dijkstra

A. M.

(2008). Of publics and science. How publics engage with biotechnology and genomics. University of Twente: Enschede.

Dijkstra

A. M.

Gutteling

J. M.

Swart

J. A. A.

Wieringa

N. F.

Van der Windt

H. J.

Seydel

E. R.

(2010). Public participation in genomics research in the Netherlands: Validating a measurement scale. Public Understanding of Science. doi:10.1177/096366251038103610.1177/0963662510381036

10.

Downs

C. C. W.

Adrian

A. D.

(2004). Focus groups interviews. In Downs

C. C. W.

Adrian

A. D.

(Eds.), Assessing organizational communication: Strategic communication audits (pp. 210-226). New York, NY: Guilford.

11.

Einsiedel

E. F.

Goldenberg

(2004). Dwarfing the social? Nanotechnology Lessons from the Biotechnology Front. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 24, 28-33.

12.

Einsiedel

Thorne

(1999). Public responses to uncertainty. In Friedman

S. M.

Dunwoody

Rogers

C. L.

(Eds.), Communicating uncertainty: Media coverage of new and controversial science (pp. 43-57). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

13.

Einsiedel

Wambui Kamara

(2006). The coming of age of public participation. In Gaskell

Bauer

M. W.

(Eds.), Genomics & society: Legal, ethical & social dimensions (pp. 95-112). Sterling, VA: Earthscan.

14.

Eurobarometer. (2005). Special Eurobarometer 224: Europeans, science and technology. Brussels, Belgium: European Commission.

15.

Felt

(2000). Why should the public “understand” science? A historical perspective. In Dierkes

Grote

C. V.

(Eds.), Between understanding and trust: The public, science and technology (pp. 7-38). London, England: Routledge.

16.

Gaskell

Bauer

M. W.

(2001). Biotechnology in the years of controversy: A social scientific perspective. In Gaskell

Bauer

M. W.

(Eds.), Biotechnology: 1996-2000 (pp. 3-11). London, England: Science Museum.

17.

Gaskell

Bauer

M. W.

(Eds.). (2006). Genomics & society: Legal, ethical & social dimensions. Sterling, VA: Earthscan.

18.

Gibbons

(1999). Science’s new social contract with society. Nature, 402, C81-C84.

19.

Gottweis

(2002). Gene therapy and the public: A matter of trust. Gene Therapy, 9, 667-669.

20.

Hansen

(2005). Framing the public: Three case studies in public participation in the governance of agricultural biotechnology (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). European University Institute, Florence, Italy.

21.

Hanssen

Dijkstra

Roeterdink

Stappers

J. G.

(2003). Wetenschapsvoorlichting: profetie of professie. Een confrontatie tussen communicatietheorie en voorlichtingspraktijk [Science information: prophecy or profession. A confrontation between communication theory and practice]. Amsterdam: Foundation Weten.

22.

Hill

Michael

(1998). Engineering acceptance: Representations of “the public” in debates on biotechnology. In Wheale

Schomberg

R. V.

Glasner

P. E.

(Eds.), The social management of genetic engineering (pp. 201-217). Aldershot, England: Ashgate.

23.

Irwin

Wynne

(Eds.). (1996). Misunderstanding science? The public reconstruction of science and technology (1st ed.). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

24.

Jacobs

Braakman

Houweling

(2005). Op eigen kracht naar gezond leven. Empowerment in de gezondheidsbevordering: Concepten, werkwijzen en onderzoeksmethoden [On its own to a healthy life. Empowerment in health improvement: concepts, procedures and research methods]. Utrecht, Netherlands: University of Humanistic Studies.

25.

Kerr

Cunningham-Burley

Amos

(1998). The new genetics and health: Mobilizing lay expertise. Public Understanding of Science, 7, 41-60.

26.

Kidd

P. S.

Parshall

M. B.

(2000). Getting the focus and the group: Enhancing analytical rigor in focus group research. Qualitative Health Research, 10, 293-308.

27.

Knodel

(1993). The design and analysis of focus group studies: A practical approach. In Morgan

D. L.

(Ed.), Successful focus groups: Advancing the state of the art (pp. 35-50). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

28.

Logan

R. A.

(2001). Science mass communication: Its conceptual history. Science Communication, 23, 135-163.

29.

Marris

Wynne

Simmons

Weldon

(2001). Public perceptions of agricultural biotechnologies in Europe: Final report of the PABE research project funded by the Commission of European Communities. Retrieved from http://www.lancs.ac.uk/fss/projects/ieppp/pabe/docs/pabe_finalreport.doc

30.

Midden

Hamstra

Gutteling

Smink

(1998). The Netherlands. In Durant

Bauer

M. W.

Gaskell

(Eds.), Biotechnology in the Public Sphere (pp. 103-117). London: Science Museum.

31.

Morgan

D. L.

(1997). Focus groups as qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

32.

Nisbet

M. C.

Scheufele

D. A.

(2009). What’s next for science communication? Promising directions and lingering distractions. American Journal of Botany, 96, 1767-1778.

33.

R. R.

Gutteling

J. M.

Kuttschreuter

. (2009). Determinants of reactions to gene technology: A generic approach. New Genetics and Society, 28(1), 51-65.

34.

Powell

M. C.

Colin

(2008). Meaningful citizen engagement in science and technology: What would it really take? Science Communication, 30, 126-136.

35.

Powell

Lee Kleinman

(2008). Building citizen capacities for participation in nanotechnology decision-making: The democratic virtues of the consensus conference model. Public Understanding of Science, 17, 329-348.

36.

Qin

Brown

J. L.

(2006). Consumer opinions about genetically engineered salmon and information effect on opinions: A qualitative approach. Science Communication, 28, 243-272.

37.

Rogers-Hayden

Pidgeon

(2008). Developments in nanotechnology public engagement in the UK: “Upstream” towards sustainability? Journal of Cleaner Production, 16, 1010-1013.

38.

Rowan

K. E.

(1994). The technical and democratic approaches to risk situations: Their appeal, limitations, and rhetorical alternative. Argumentation, 8, 391-409.

39.

Rowe

Frewer

L. J.

(2000). Public participation methods: A framework for evaluation. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 25, 3-29.

40.

Sturgis

Allum

(2004). Science in society: Re-evaluating the deficit model of public attitudes. Public Understanding of Science, 13, 55-74.

41.

Ter Huurne

E. F. J.

Gutteling

J. M.

(2009). How to trust? the importance of self-efficacy and social trust in public responses to industrial risks. Journal of Risk Research, 12(6), 809-824. doi: 10.1080/1366987090272609110.1080/13669870902726091

42.

Wilsdon

Willis

(2004). See-through science: Why public engagement needs to move upstream. London, England: Demos.

43.

Wynne

(1995). Public understanding of science. In Jasanoff

Markle

G. E.

Petersen

J. C.

Pinch

(Eds.), Handbook of science and technology studies (pp. 361-388). London, England: Sage.

44.

Ziman

(1991). Public understanding of science. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 16, 99-105.

45.

Zimmerman

M. A.

(2000). Empowerment theory: Psychological, organizational and community levels of analysis. In Rappaport

Seidman

(Eds.), Handbook of community psychology (pp. 43-63). New York, NY: Kluwer Academic.