This article considers the impact values attributed to public engagement with science and technology (PEST) as articulated by a cohort of U.K.-based medical researchers (n = 84) within a partially open-ended survey. Two discrete yet interlinking impact categories emerge—impact of PEST on researchers and the research process and impact of PEST on the public image and reputation of research/researchers. These accounts reveal a limited sentiment among medical researchers for PEST envisaged as “upstream” and leading to public/patient collaboration and suggest that PEST is encouraged more frequently in the promotion and defense of medical science within the public sphere.
AbelsonJ.ForestP. G.EylesJ.CasebeerA.MartinE.MackeanG. (2007). Examining the role of context in the implementation of a deliberative public participation experiment: Results from a Canadian comparative study. Social Science & Medicine, 64, 2115-2128.
2.
BauerM. W.JensenP. (2011). The mobilization of scientists for public engagement. Public Understanding of Science, 20, 3-11.
3.
BhattacharyD. (2006). Science communication excellence: Survey of factors effecting science communication by scientists and engineers. London, England: Royal Society and Wellcome Trust.
4.
BoraA.HausendorfH. (2006). Participatory science governance revisited: Normative expectations versus empirical evidence. Science and Public Policy, 33, 478-488.
5.
BurchellK.FranklinS.HoldenK. (2009). Public culture as professional science: Final report of the SCOPE project (Scientists on public engagement: From communication to deliberation?)London, England: BIOS, London School of Economics and Political Science.
6.
CantleyM. (2005). In our own hands. Nature, 437, 193-194.
7.
CollinsH.EvansR. (2002). The third wave of science studies: Studies of expertise and experience. Social Studies of Science, 32, 235-296.
8.
CookeB.KothariU. (Eds.). (2001). Participation: The new tyranny. London, England: Zed Books.
9.
Delli CarpiniM. X.CookF. L.JacobsL. R. (2004). Public deliberation, discursive participation and citizen engagement: A review of the empirical literature. Annual Review of Political Science, 7, 315-344.
DunwoodyS.BrossardD.DudoA. (2009). Socialization or rewards? Predicting American scientists’ media interactions. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 86, 299-313.
12.
DurantJ. (1999). Participatory technology assessment and the democratic model of the public understanding of science. Science and Public Policy, 26, 313-319.
13.
DurantJ.EvansG.ThomasG. (1992). Public understanding of science in Britain: The role of medicine in the popular representation of science. Public Understanding of Science, 1, 161-182.
14.
DurodiéB. (2003). Limitations of public dialogue in science and the rise of the new “experts.”Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy, 6(4), 82-92.
15.
EpsteinS. (1996). Impure science. Berkeley: University of California Press.
16.
FiorinoD. J. (1990). Citizen participation and environmental risk: A survey of institutional mechanisms. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 15, 226-43.
17.
FitzgeraldK.PetermanW. (2003). UK research universities and community engagement: Developing a practical framework for community partnerships. Bristol, England: University of Bristol.
18.
GavelinK.WilsonR. (with DoubledayR.) (2007). Democratic technologies? The final report of the Nanotechnology Engagement Group (NEG). London, England: Involve.
19.
GaventaJ.CornwallA. (2000). From users and choosers to makers and shapers: Repositioning participation in social policy. IDS Bulletin, 31(4), 50-62.
20.
GibbonsM.LimogesC.NowotnyH.SchwartzmanS.ScottP.TrowM. (1994). The new production of knowledge: The dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. London, England: Sage.
21.
GregoryJ.MillerS. (1998). Science in public: Communication, culture and credibility. Cambridge, MA: Perseus.
22.
HansenA. (2009). Science, communication and media. In HollimanR.WhiteleggE.ScanlonE.SmidtS.ThomasJ. (Eds.), Investigating science communication in the information age: Implications for public engagement and popular media (pp. 105-127). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
23.
HoldsworthC. (2006). HEIs and local communities: Forward and backward linkages. Exeter, England: University of Exeter
24.
HollimanR.JensenE. (2009). (In)authentic sciences and (im)partial: (Re)constructing the science outreach and public engagement agenda. In HollimanR.WhiteleggE.ScanlonE.SmidtS.ThomasJ. (Eds.), Investigating science communication in the information age: Implications for public engagement and popular media (pp. 35-52). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
25.
House of Lords, Select Committee on Science and Technology. (2000). Science and technology (Third Report). London, England: Her Majesty's Stationery Office.
26.
IrwinA. (1995). Citizen science: A study of people, expertise and sustainable development. London, England: Routledge.
27.
IrwinA.WynneB. (Eds.). (1996). Misunderstanding science: The public reconstruction of science and technology. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
28.
JasanoffS. (2005). Designs on nature: Science and democracy in Europe and the United States. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
29.
JasanoffS. (2005). Designs on nature: Science and democracy in Europe and the United States. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
LambertH.RoseH. (1996). Disembodied knowledge? Making sense of medical science. In IrwinWynne (Eds.), Misunderstanding Science? The Public Reconstruction of Science & Technology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
32.
LezaunJ.SonerydL. (2007). Consulting citizens: Technologies of elicitation and the mobility of publics. Public Understanding of Science, 16, 279-97.
33.
MaasenS.WeingartP. (Eds.). (2006). Democratization of expertise? Exploring novel forms of scientific advice in political decision making. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.
34.
MouffeC. (1999). Deliberative democracy or agonistic pluralism. Social Research, 66, 745-758.
35.
O’DonnellM.EntwistleV. (2004). Consumer involvement in decisions about what health-related research is funded. Health Policy, 70, 281-290.
36.
PidgeonN.Rogers-HaydenT. (2005). Public engagement on GM and nanotechnology. Science & Public Affairs, June, 14.
37.
PoliakoffE.WebbT. L. (2007). What factors predict scientists’ intentions to participate in public engagement of science activities?Science Communication, 29, 242-263.
Rogers-HaydenT.PidgeonN. (2007). Moving engagement “upstream”? Nanotechnologies and the Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering’s inquiry. Public Understanding of Science, 16, 345-364.
40.
RoseN. (1999). Powers of freedom: Reframing political thought. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
41.
RoweG.FrewerL. J. (2004). Evaluating public participation exercises: A research agenda. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 29, 512-556.
42.
RoweG.FrewerL. J (2005). A typology of public engagement mechanisms. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 30, 251-290.
43.
RoweG.GammackJ. (2004). Promise and perils of electronic public engagement. Science and Public Policy, 31, 39-54.
44.
Royal Society. (2006). Science communication: Survey of factors affecting science communication by scientists and engineers. London, England: Author.
45.
SandersL. M. (1997). Against deliberation. Political Theory, 25, 347-376.
46.
ShamosM. (1995). The myth of scientific literacy. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
StilgoeJ.IrwinA.JonesK. (2006). The received wisdom: Opening up expert advice. London, England: Demos.
49.
StilgoeJ.SykesK. (2009). A little more conversation. In StilgoeJ. (Ed.), The road ahead: Public dialogue on science and technology. Didcot, England: Sciencewise Expert Resource Centre. Retrieved from http://www.sciencewise-erc.org.uk/cms/the-road-ahead/
50.
StilgoeJ.WilsdonJ. (2007). Rules of engagement: Democracy and dialogue in creating nanotechnology futures. In AllhoffF.LinP.MoorJ.WeckertJ. (Eds.), Nano-ethics: The ethical and social implications of nanotechnology (pp. 241-250). New York, NY: Wiley Interscience.
51.
TaverneD. (2005). The march of unreason: Science, democracy and the new fundamentalism. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
52.
TuckerA. (2008). Pre-emptive Democracy: Oligarchic Tendencies in Deliberative Democracy. Political Studies. 56 (1): 127-147.
53.
WatermeyerR. (2011). Challenges for university engagement in the UK: Towards a public academe?Higher Education Quarterly. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2273.2011.00492
54.
Wellcome Trust/Market & Opinion Research. (2000). The role of scientists in public debate. London, England: Author.
55.
WengerE. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning and identity. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
56.
WilsdonJ. (2004). Science is moving upstream. Science & Public Affairs, December, 11.
57.
WilsdonJ.WillisR. (2004). See-through science: Why public engagement needs to move upstream. London, England: Demos.
58.
WilsdonJ.WynneB.StilgoeJ. (2005). The public value of science: Or how to ensure that science really matters. London, England: Demos.
59.
WynneB. (1996). Maythe sheep safely graze? A reflexive view of the expert-lay knowledge divide. In LashS.SzerszynskiB.WynneB. (Eds.), Risk, environment and modernity: Towards a new ecology (pp. 44-83). London, England: Sage.
60.
ZimanJ. (1991). Public understanding of science. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 16, 99-105.
