From intent to implementation: Factors affecting public involvement in life science research

Abstract

Public involvement is key to closing the gap between research production and research use, and the only way to achieving ultimate transparency in science. The majority of life science research is not public-facing, but is funded by the public and impacts the community. We undertook a survey of researchers within the life sciences to better understand their views and perceived challenges to involving the public in their research. We had a valid response cohort of n=110 researchers, of whom 90% were primarily laboratory based. Using a mixed methods approach, we demonstrate that a topdown approach is key to motivate progression of life scientists from feeling positive towards public involvement to actually engaging in it. Researchers who viewed public involvement as beneficial to their research were more likely to have direct experience of doing it. We demonstrate that the systemic flaws in the way life sciences research enterprise is organised, including the promotion system, hypercompetition, and time pressures are major barriers to involving the public in the scientific process.Scientists are also apprehensive of being involuntarily involved in the current politicized climate, misinformation and publicity hype surrounding science nowadays makes them hesitant to share their early and in-progress research. The time required to deliberate study design and relevance, plan and build relationships for sustained involvement, provide and undertake training, and improve communication in the current research environment is often considered nonpragmatic, particularly for early career researchers. In conclusion, a top-down approach involving institutional incentives and infrastructure appears most effective at transitioning researchers from feeling positive towards public involvement to actually implementing it.

Co-Creation Facilitates Translational Research on Upper Limb Prosthetics

“…Consequently, a top-down approach can lead to tokenism, which may not result in co-created research that address the needs of a population [51]. Furthermore, the time required to implement co-creation can be deemed impractical, especially for early career researchers, due to contract duration and lack of career incentives for this area of research [52]. Given the multi-disciplinary nature of co-creation, from a broad perspective, academic institutions may benefit from assessing how studies are facilitated by current structures and career progression routes.…”

“…Given the multi-disciplinary nature of co-creation, from a broad perspective, academic institutions may benefit from assessing how studies are facilitated by current structures and career progression routes. Academic institutions can adopt a phased approach, which could be initiated by re-addressing incentives for conducting public involvement [52].…”

Involving society in science

“…This can include increased mutual trust and mutual learning, improved social relevance of research, and improved adoption of results and knowledge (Cottrell et al, 2014). Finally, stakeholder engagement is often regarded as an important factor to sustain public investment in the life sciences (Burns et al, 2021). Here, we discuss different levels of stakeholder engagement by way of example, presenting various activities organized by European research institutions.…”

“…This can include increased mutual trust and mutual learning, improved social relevance of research, and improved adoption of results and knowledge (Cottrell et al , 2014). Finally, stakeholder engagement is often regarded as an important factor to sustain public investment in the life sciences (Burns et al , 2021).…”

“…Beyond, stakeholder engagement is also beneficial to researchers and to research itself. In a recent survey, the majority of scientists reported benefits from public engagement (Burns et al , 2021). This can include increased mutual trust and mutual learning, improved social relevance of research, and improved adoption of results and knowledge (Cottrell et al , 2014).…”