Controversial science-based technology public attitude formation and regulation in comparative perspective: The state construction of policy alternatives in Asia

Leong, Ching; Jarvis, Darryl Stuart; Howlett, Michael; Migone, Andrea

doi:10.1016/j.techsoc.2011.03.007

Cited by 3 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 53 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In short, science communication in China follows a top-down approach with an acute sensitivity towards serving economic and political objectives. This state dominance is exhibited in the development of both traditional scientific disciplines as well as emerging science, such as biomedicine and nanotechnologies ( Jia and Liu, 2014 ; Leong et al, 2011 ; Ren, 2014 ). It is true that China is not unique in politicising science.…”

Section: Methodology and Structurementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Second, China may represent an extreme case of asymmetrical power-relations between the state, scientific community and society. However, China is hardly unique in having the national government as the dominant and most powerful apparatus to direct public opinion and shape the conditions in which societies embrace or reject a new technology ( Bell and Hindmoor, 2009 : 77–78, 86; Leong et al, 2011 ). It is not the presence of government per se , but an over-politicisation of science that alienated the public (and the scientists) and paralysed effective communication in China.…”

Section: A Reflection On Science Communication In Chinamentioning

confidence: 99%

“…To be sure, the public engagement with science, aiming to involve diversified stakeholders to establish a ‘hybrid forum’ and to strengthen ‘societal regulation’ of science is still in its infancy in China ( Callon et al, 2009 ; Jelsøe et al, 2006 : 45–49; Zhang, 2012 ). This is reflected in existing studies on public communication in the field of nanotechnology, genetic modification (GM) technologies, vaccination and the promotion of scientific literacy in general ( Jia and Liu, 2014 ; Leong et al, 2011 ; Ren et al, 2014 ). The nascent state of science communication in China can also be seen from official government documents which lack the vocabulary to describe various interactions between science and the public.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Based on recent fieldwork, this article argues that this ‘neat’ depiction of Chinese science communication as a top-down ‘deficit’ approach with unenthusiastic scientists may be misleading. As rightly pointed out by previous comparative studies of alternative public engagement in Asia, science communication in authoritarian societies, such as China, cannot be simply equated to a ‘deficit model’ ( Leong et al, 2011 ). Reducing the perceived communicative attitudes of the Chinese state and Chinese scientists to a ‘deficit model’ framework obscures crucial differences in the power-relations among the state, the scientific community and the public.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Effective public communication is essential for maximising the uptake and application of scientific research carried out in, and with, China ( Moreno, 2010 ). More importantly, as rightly pointed out by policy scholars Leong et al (2011) , the theorisation of public acceptance of science has hitherto been based mainly on Western liberal-democratic states; how contentious technologies acquire their social support in societies where ‘states play much more active and central roles’ necessitates empirical examination (p. 135). By investigating Chinese scientists’ account of the entangled web of influence which conditions how scientific knowledge achieves (or fails to achieve) its civic authority, this article furthers the civic epistemology thesis by extending its discussion to an authoritarian state.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

The ‘credibility paradox’ in China’s science communication: Views from scientific practitioners

Zhang

2015

Public Underst Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In contrast to increasing debates on China’s rising status as a global scientific power, issues of China’s science communication remain under-explored. Based on 21 in-depth interviews in three cities, this article examines Chinese scientists’ accounts of the entangled web of influence which conditions the process of how scientific knowledge achieves (or fails to achieve) its civic authority. A main finding of this study is a ‘credibility paradox’ as a result of the over-politicisation of science and science communication in China. Respondents report that an absence of visible institutional endorsements renders them more public credibility and better communication outcomes. Thus, instead of exploiting formal channels of science communication, scientists interviewed were more keen to act as ‘informal risk communicators’ in grassroots and private events. Chinese scientists’ perspectives on how to earn public support of their research sheds light on the nature and impact of a ‘civic epistemology’ in an authoritarian state.

show abstract

Section: Methodology and Structurementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: A Reflection On Science Communication In Chinamentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

The ‘credibility paradox’ in China’s science communication: Views from scientific practitioners

Zhang

2015

Public Underst Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Empirically Supported Out‐of‐the‐Box Strategies for Science Communication by Environmental Scientists

Langan

Cheng

Hunka

2019

Integr Envir Assess & Manag

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Scientists are expected to communicate their research to a wide audience, while often lacking appreciable training. Environmental science poses many value‐laden and ethical questions. This necessitates the identification and use of specific strategies or guidelines, which encourage 2‐way communication and enable trust in both the experts and the scientific results. The objective of this paper is to give environmental scientists tools for effective science communication based on sound scientific evidence that does not require further specialization in communication studies. Using common scientific search engines in Europe, scientific communication literature that met specific parameters was identified. The summarized data contextualize the importance of science communication in environmental sciences but also highlight the need of scientists for communication experts to aid in establishing objectives for particularly complex topics and audiences. Integr Environ Assess Manag 2019;15:499–504. © 2019 SETAC

show abstract

Emerging Therapeutic Enhancement Enabling Health Technologies and Their Discourses: What Is Discussed within the Health Domain?

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

So far, the very meaning of health and therefore, treatment and rehabilitation is benchmarked to the normal or species-typical body. We expect certain abilities in members of a species; we expect humans to walk but not to fly, but a bird we expect to fly. However, increasingly therapeutic interventions have the potential to give recipients beyond species-typical body related abilities (therapeutic enhancements, TE). We believe that the perfect storm of TE, the shift in ability expectations toward beyond species-typical body abilities, and the increasing desire of health consumers to shape the health system will increasingly influence various aspects of health care practice, policy, and scholarship. We employed qualitative and quantitative methods to investigate among others how human enhancement, neuro/cognitive enhancement, brain machine interfaces, and social robot discourses cover (a) healthcare, healthcare policy, and healthcare ethics, (b) disability and (c) health consumers and how visible various assessment fields are within Neuro/Cogno/Human enhancement and within the BMI and social robotics discourse. We found that health care, as such, is little discussed, as are health care policy and ethics; that the term consumers (but not health consumers) is used; that technology, impact and needs assessment is absent; and that the imagery of disabled people is primarily a medical one. We submit that now, at this early stage, is the time to gain a good understanding of what drives the push for the enhancement agenda and enhancement-enabling devices, and the dynamics around acceptance and diffusion of therapeutic enhancements.

show abstract

Controversial science-based technology public attitude formation and regulation in comparative perspective: The state construction of policy alternatives in Asia

Cited by 3 publications

References 53 publications

The ‘credibility paradox’ in China’s science communication: Views from scientific practitioners

The ‘credibility paradox’ in China’s science communication: Views from scientific practitioners

Empirically Supported Out‐of‐the‐Box Strategies for Science Communication by Environmental Scientists

Emerging Therapeutic Enhancement Enabling Health Technologies and Their Discourses: What Is Discussed within the Health Domain?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About