Building the capacity for public engagement with science in the United States

Guston, David H.

doi:10.1177/0963662513476403

Cited by 26 publications

(28 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…I have focused on the rationale and guidance for community engagement at the local level. This does not preclude, and, to the contrary, should be implemented alongside, wider public engagement efforts, including nationwide or international discussions in forums like World Wide Views . Wider public engagement efforts may have different goals and purposes, however.…”

Section: Local and Wider Engagementmentioning

confidence: 99%

Community Engagement and Field Trials of Genetically Modified Insects and Animals

Neuhaus¹

2018

Hastings Center Report

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

New techniques for the genetic modification of organisms are creating new strategies for addressing persistent public health challenges. For example, the company Oxitec has conducted field trials internationally—and has attempted to conduct field trials in the United States—of a genetically modified mosquito that can be used to control dengue, Zika, and some other mosquito‐borne diseases. In 2016, a report commissioned by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine discussed the potential benefits and risks of another strategy, using gene drives. Driving a desired genotype through a population of wild animals or insects could lead to irreversible genetic modification of an entire species. The NASEM report recommends community, stakeholder, and public engagement about potential uses of the technology, and it argues that the engagement should occur as research advances, well before gene drives are deployed. Yet what “engagement” means in practice is unclear. This article seeks clarity on this problem by offering a justification for community engagement and drawing out implications of this argument for the implementation and desired outcomes of community engagement. Community engagement is essential when it comes to research that would release genetically modified insects or animals into the environment. By contrast, obtaining informed consent from people who live near such a proposed field trial is neither necessary nor sufficient. Drawing on the epistemic and moral arguments for deliberative democracy, I propose two discrete mechanisms of community engagement: community advisory boards and deliberative forums, neither of which has been systematically incorporated into research governance. The proposed mechanisms would engender respect for persons who live near field trials, even when the results of deliberation override some individuals’ preferences. Community engagement foregrounds the community in our thinking about humans’ relationship to nature, and it implies that deciding to release genetically modified insects or animals into the wild ought to be a collective decision, not one made by product developers, policy‐makers, private companies, research funders, or scientists alone.

show abstract

Section: Local and Wider Engagementmentioning

confidence: 99%

Community Engagement and Field Trials of Genetically Modified Insects and Animals

Neuhaus¹

2018

Hastings Center Report

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…CNS-ASU has drawn insight from OTA in their effort to put into practice the tenants of "real-time technology assessment" and "anticipatory governance" [34]; [3]. With a focus on emerging technologies (including, but not limited to, nanotechnology), CNS-ASU has developed and helped implement a number of multi-pronged projects that seek to reframe both the means and ends of public engagement within an institutionalized TA setting [31,32]. Such projects include national and global deliberations that use both face-to-face and Internet-based interactions for deliberation [18,54], as well as non-traditional modesdlike urban walking tours and art þ designdthat facilitate and motivate "affective connections, materialities, and experiences" in order to open up different types of deliberation and engagement (Refs.…”

Section: A Deficit In Public Participationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Office of Technology Assessment: History, implementation, and participatory critique

Sadowski

2015

Technology in Society

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…[104][105][106][107][108] Coming from a different but compatible tradition, the Danish Board of Technology; the Consortium for Science, Policy and Outcomes; and the Loka Institute, among others have been utilizing consensus conferences to create deliberative spaces where citizens can explore both technical and nontechnical components of decisions in order to advise decision makers. 57,109,110 Each of these formats is designed to confront trans-scientific issues without dismissing either the technical or the value-based considerations inherent therein, and each creates mutual learning opportunities for experts and nonexperts. 111 Scientists who participate in activities such as these can learn what types of knowledge might be most relevant to decision makers, and thus have an opportunity to design research agendas that may directly inform future policy.…”

Section: Potential Paths Forwardmentioning

confidence: 99%

A productive role for science in assisted colonization policy

Neff

Carroll

2016

WIREs Climate Change

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Assisted colonization—the intentional movement of species as a climate adaptation strategy—has emerged as a divisive controversy in the conservation biology literature. We review selected scientific literature to understand the nature of the controversy, alongside relevant scholarship on the science‐policy interface to highlight ways in which scientists and their work might most effectively and appropriately inform decisions on this management strategy. The scientific literature thus far is problematic in two ways that threaten to undermine the utility of science to actual decision‐making processes: As a collection, it contains abundant and seemingly incommensurable insights about assisted colonization. This is at least in part a product of nature, which is sufficiently diverse to provide examples and case studies that appear to justify any number of policy preferences regarding ecosystem management. This first shortcoming exacerbates the second: Scientific authors thus far have not adequately addressed the value‐based considerations implicit in their own work, nor acknowledged public's legitimate standing in these inherently value‐based decisions. In combination, these attributes of the literature ensure that additional knowledge on assisted colonization will exacerbate public controversy—rather than dispel it—when public attention increases. We propose that if scientists appropriately disentangle value considerations from technical ones, invite public debates over values, and treat proposals individually rather than debating the approach writ‐large, they stand to have the greatest influence over technical aspects of decision processes. Scientists would serve themselves well to acknowledge the limits of science and embrace public dialogue about specific management proposals. WIREs Clim Change 2016, 7:852–868. doi: 10.1002/wcc.420 This article is categorized under: Climate, Ecology, and Conservation > Extinction Risk Social Status of Climate Change Knowledge > Climate Science and Decision Making

show abstract

Building the capacity for public engagement with science in the United States

Cited by 26 publications

References 19 publications

Community Engagement and Field Trials of Genetically Modified Insects and Animals

Community Engagement and Field Trials of Genetically Modified Insects and Animals

Office of Technology Assessment: History, implementation, and participatory critique

A productive role for science in assisted colonization policy

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About