Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Theoretically and methodologically sound research on the reach and impact of public engagement practices continues to lag behind. Using the 2015 Wisconsin Science Festival as context, we empirically investigate the impacts of a public engagement activity about a nascent and controversial scientific issue, human gene editing. Overall, we find the panel increased participants’ understanding of the complexities of human gene editing, as demonstrated by increases in knowledge and the moral acceptability of the technology among respondents, as well as the associated risk and benefit perceptions. Practical and theoretical implications for science festivals and public engagement with science activities are discussed.

Keywords

public engagement public understanding of science controversial science gene editing science festivals science outreach

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Agresti

Finlay

(2009). Statistical methods for the social sciences (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.

Akin

Hardy

Brossard

Scheufele

D. A.

Xenos

M. A.

Corley

E. A.

(2016, February). The pitfalls of popularizing science beyond the proverbial choir: Lessons from Cosmos 2.0. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Washington, DC.

Allum

Sturgis

Tabourazi

Brunton-Smith

(2008). Science knowledge and attitudes across cultures: a meta-analysis. Public Understanding of Science, 17, 35-54. doi:10.1177/0963662506070159

Anderson

A. A.

Brossard

Scheufele

D. A.

Xenos

M. A.

(2012). Online talk: How exposure to disagreement in online comments affects beliefs in the promise of controversial science. In Phillips

Carvalho

Doyle

(Eds.), Citizen voices: Performing public participation in science and environment communication (pp. 119-135). Chicago, IL: Intellect.

Bauer

M. W.

Petkova

Boyadjieva

(2000). Public knowledge of and attitudes to science: Alternative measures that may

end the “science war.”

Science, Technology & Human Values, 25, 30-51. doi:10.1177/016224390002500102

Bell

(2008). Engaging the public in technology policy: A new role for science museums. Science Communication, 29(3), 386-398.

Besley

J. C.

Kramer

V. L.

Yao

Toumey

(2008). Interpersonal discussion following citizen engagement about nanotechnology: What, if anything, do they say? Science Communication, 30, 209-235. doi:10.1177/1075547008324670

Binder

A. R.

Cacciatore

M. A.

Scheufele

D. A.

Shaw

B. R.

Corley

E. A.

(2012). Measuring risk/benefit perceptions of emerging technologies and their potential impact on communication of public opinion toward science. Public Understanding of Science, 21, 830-847.

Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council. (2010). Synthetic biology dialogue. Retrieved from http://www.bbsrc.ac.uk/engagement/dialogue/activities/synthetic-biology/

10.

Bird

S. P.

Murphy

Bake

Albayrak

Ö.

Mercer

J. G.

(2013). Getting science to the citizen: “Food addiction” at the British Science Festival as a case study of interactive public engagement with high profile scientific controversy. Obesity Facts, 6, 103-108.

11.

Blonder

Rap

(2013). It’s a small world after all: A nanotechnology activity in a science festival. Journal of Nano Education, 4, 47-56. doi:10.1166/jne.2012.1029

12.

Brossard

Lewenstein

B. V.

(2010). A critical appraisal of models of public understanding of science: Using practice to inform theory. In Kahlor

Stout

(Eds.), Communicating science: New agendas in communication (pp. 11-39). New York, NY: Routledge.

13.

Brossard

Scheufele

D. A.

Kim

Lewenstein

B. V.

(2009). Religiosity as a perceptual filter: Examining processes of opinion formation about nanotechnology. Public Understanding of Science, 18, 546-558.

14.

Brossard

Shanahan

(2006). Do they know what they read? Building a scientific literacy measurement instrument based on science media coverage. Science Communication, 28, 47-63. doi:10.1177/1075547006291345

15.

Bultitude

(2014). Science festivals: Do they succeed in reaching beyond the “already engaged”? Journal of Science Communication, 13(4), 1-3.

16.

Burgess

M. M.

(2014). From “trust us” to participatory governance: Deliberative publics and science policy. Public Understanding of Science, 23, 48-52. doi:10.1177/0963662512472160

17.

Chen

D.-S.

Deng

C.-Y.

(2007). Interaction between citizens and experts in public deliberation: A case study of consensus conferences in Taiwan. East Asian Science, Technology and Society, 1(1), 77-97. doi:10.1007/s12280-007-9003-8

18.

Costa-Font

Gil

J. M.

Traill

W. B.

(2008). Consumer acceptance, valuation of and attitudes towards genetically modified food: Review and implications for food policy. Food Policy, 33, 99-111. doi:10.1016/j.foodpol.2007.07.002

19.

Covello

V. T.

(1998). Risk perception and communication. In Proceedings of the North American Conference on Pesticide Spray Drift Management (pp. 161-186. Retrieved from http://s3.amazonaws.com/zanran_storage/pmo.umext.maine.edu/ContentPages/121836374.pdf

20.

Currall

S. C.

King

E. B.

Lane

Madera

Turner

(2006). What drives public acceptance of nanotechnology? Nat Nano, 1, 153-155.

21.

Dijkstra

A. M.

Critchley

C. R.

(2016). Nanotechnology in Dutch science cafés: Public risk perceptions contextualised. Public Understanding of Science, 25, 71-87. doi:10.1177/0963662514528080

22.

Dillman

D. A.

Smyth

J. D.

Christian

L. M.

(2014). Internet, phone, mail, and mixed-mode surveys: The tailored design method (4th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

23.

Durant

(2013). The role of science festivals. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 110, 2681-2681.

24.

Einsiedel

E. F.

(2002). Assessing a controversial medical technology: Canadian public consultations on xenotransplantation. Public Understanding of Science, 11, 315-331. doi:10.1088/0963-6625/11/4/301

25.

Einsiedel

E. F.

Eastlick

D. L.

(2000). Consensus conferences as deliberative democracy: Aa communications perspective. Science Communication, 21(4), 323-343. doi:10.1177/1075547000021004001

26.

Einsiedel

E. F.

Jelsøe

Breck

(2001). Publics at the technology table: The consensus conference in Denmark, Canada, and Australia. Public Understanding of Science, 10, 83-98. doi:10.1088/0963-6625/10/1/306

27.

Enserink

(2004). Europe clones U.S. science festival. Science, 305(5689), 1387.

28.

Eveland

W. P.

Cooper

K. E.

(2013). An integrated model of communication influence on beliefs. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 110(Suppl. 3), 14088-14095. doi:10.1073/pnas.1212742110

29.

Felt

(2003). Optimising public understanding of science and technology: Final report. Vienna, Austria: University of Vienna.

30.

Finucane

M. L.

Alhakami

Slovic

Johnson

S. M.

(2000). The affect heuristic in judgments of risks and benefits. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 13, 1-17.

31.

Fogg-Rogers

Bay

J. L.

Burgess

Purdy

S. C.

(2015). “Knowledge is power”: A mixed-methods study exploring adult audience preferences for engagement and learning formats over 3 years of a health science festival. Science Communication, 37, 419-451.

32.

Gregory

Miller

(1998). Science in public. New York, NY: Perseus.

33.

Hart Research Associates. (2013). Awareness & impressions of synthetic biology: A report of findings based on a national survey among adults. Washington, DC: Author.

34.

S. S.

Brossard

Scheufele

D. A.

(2008). Effects of value predispositions, mass media use, and knowledge on public attitudes toward embryonic stem cell research. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 20, 171-192. doi:10.1093/ijpor/edn017

35.

Irwin

Wynne

(Eds.). (2003). Misunderstanding science? The public reconstruction of science and technology. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

36.

Jasanoff

Benjamin Hurlbut

Saha

(2015). CRISER democracy: Gene editing and the need for inclusive deliberation. Issues in Science & Technology, 32, 25-32.

37.

Johnson

B. B.

(1993). Advancing understanding of knowledge’s role in lay risk perception. Risk: Issues in Health & Safety, 4, 189-212.

38.

Jones

A. R.

Anderson

A. A.

Yeo

S. K.

Greenberg

A. E.

Brossard

Moore

J. W.

(2014). Using a deliberative exercise to foster public engagement in nanotechnology. Journal of Chemical Education, 91, 179-187. doi:10.1021/ed400517q

39.

Joss

(1998). Danish consensus conferences as a model of participatory technology assessment: An impact study of consensus conferences on Danish Parliament and Danish public debate. Science and Public Policy, 25, 2-22. doi:10.1093/spp/25.1.2

40.

Kim

Yeo

S. K.

Brossard

Scheufele

D. A.

Xenos

M. A.

(2014). Disentangling the influence of value predispositions and risk/benefit perceptions on support for nanotechnology among the American public. Risk Analysis, 34, 965-980.

41.

Knight

A. J.

(2005). Differential effects of perceived and objective knowledge measures on perceptions of biotechnology. AgBioForum, 8, 221-227.

42.

Ladwig

Dalrymple

K. E.

Brossard

Scheufele

D. A.

Corley

E. A.

(2012). Perceived familiarity or factual knowledge? Comparing operationalizations of scientific understanding. Science and Public Policy, 39, 761-774. doi:10.1093/scipol/scs048

43.

Leshner

A. I.

(2003). Public engagement with science. Science, 299, 977-977.

44.

Longstaff

Secko

D. M.

(2016). Assessing the quality of a deliberative democracy mini-public event about advanced biofuel production and development in Canada. Public Understanding of Science, 25, 252-261. doi:10.1177/0963662514545014

45.

Lupia

(2013). Communicating science in politicized environments. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 110(Suppl. 3), 14048-14054. doi:10.1073/pnas.1212726110

46.

Manning

Lin

Goodman

I. F.

(2013). The Science Festival Alliance: Creating a sustainable national network of science festivals. Cambridge, MA: Goodman Research Group.

47.

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2016). Science literacy: Concepts, contexts, and consequences. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

48.

Nielsen

K. H.

Balling

Hope

Nakamura

(2015). Sipping science: The interpretative flexibility of science cafés in Denmark and Japan. East Asian Science, Technology and Society, 9, 1-21. doi:10.1215/18752160-2832109

49.

Petts

(2007). Learning about learning: Lessons from public engagement and deliberation on urban river restoration. Geographical Journal, 173, 300-311. doi:10.1111/j.1475-4959.2007.00254.x

50.

Pew Research Center. (2016). U.S. public wary of biomedical technologies to “enhance” human abilities. Washington, DC: Author.

51.

Pidgeon

Rogers-Hayden

(2007). Opening up nanotechnology dialogue with the publics: Risk communication or ‘upstream engagement’? Health, Risk & Society, 9, 191-210. doi:10.1080/13698570701306906

52.

Purdue

(1999). Experiments in the governance of biotechnology: A case study of the UK National Consensus Conference. New Genetics & Society, 18(1), 79.

53.

Sardo

A. M.

Grand

(2016). Science in culture: Audiences’ perspective on engaging with science at a summer festival. Science Communication, 38, 251-260. doi:10.1177/1075547016632537

54.

Scheufele

D. A.

(2006). Messages and heuristics: How audiences form attitudes about emerging technologies. In Turney

(Ed.), Engaging science: Thoughts, deeds, analysis and action (pp. 20-25): London, England: Wellcome Trust.

55.

Scheufele

D. A.

(2013). Communicating science in social settings. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 110(Suppl. 3), 14040-14047. doi:10.1073/pnas.1213275110

56.

Scheufele

D. A.

(2014). Science communication as political communication. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 111(Suppl. 4), 13585-13592. doi:10.1073/pnas.1317516111

57.

Scheufele

D. A.

Corley

E. A.

Shih

T.-J.

Dalrymple

K. E.

S. S.

(2009). Religious beliefs and public attitudes toward nanotechnology in Europe and the United States. Nat Nano, 4, 91-94.

58.

Scheufele

D. A.

Lewenstein

B. V.

(2005). The public and nanotechnology: How citizens make sense of emerging technologies. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 7, 659-667. doi:10.1007/s11051-005-7526-2

59.

Slovic

(1987). Perception of risk. Science, 236(4799), 280-285. doi:10.1126/science.3563507

60.

STAT & Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health. (2016). The public and genetic editing, testing, and therapy. Retrieved from https://cdn1.sph.harvard.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/94/2016/01/STAT-Harvard-Poll-Jan-2016-Genetic-Technology.pdf

61.

Stilgoe

Lock

S. J.

Wilsdon

(2014). Why should we promote public engagement with science? Public Understanding of Science, 23, 4-15. doi:10.1177/0963662513518154

62.

L. Y.-F.

Cacciatore

M. A.

Scheufele

D. A.

Brossard

Xenos

M. A.

(2014). Inequalities in scientific understanding: Differentiating between factual and perceived knowledge gaps. Science Communication, 36, 352-378. doi:10.1177/1075547014529093

63.

von Roten

F. C

. (2011). In search of a new public for scientific exhibitions or festivals: The lead of casual visitors. Journal of Science Communication, 10, 1-8.

64.

Wachelder

(2003). Democratizing science: Various routes and visions of Dutch science shops. Science, Technology & Human Values, 28, 244-273.

65.

Wall

(2014). Program evaluation model: 9-step process. Retrieved from http://www.janetwall.net/attachments/File/9_Step_Evaluation_Model_Paper.pdf

66.

Wallquist

Visschers

V. H. M.

Siegrist

(2010). Impact of knowledge and misconceptions on benefit and risk perception of CCS. Environmental Science & Technology, 44, 6557-6562. doi:10.1021/es1005412

67.

Weitkamp

(2015). A question of (audience) reach. Journal of Science Communication, 14(3). Retrieved from https://jcom.sissa.it/sites/default/files/documents/JCOM_1403_2015_E.pdf

68.

Wisconsin Science Festival. (2015). Wisconsin Science Festival at a glance. Retrieved from https://www.wisconsinsciencefest.org/about.wsf

69.

Yeo

S. K.

Cacciatore

M. A.

Brossard

Scheufele

D. A.

Runge

L. Y.

. . . Corley

E. A.

(2013). Partisan amplification of risk: American perceptions of nuclear energy risk in the wake of the Fukushima Daiichi disaster. Energy Policy, 67, 727-736. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2013.11.061

70.

Zhu

Xie

(2015). Effects of knowledge on attitude formation and change toward genetically modified foods. Risk Analysis, 35, 790-810. doi:10.1111/risa.12319

Engaging the Public at a Science Festival

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References