Informing, involving or engaging? Science communication, in the ages of atom-, bio- and nanotechnology

Abstract

Science communication has shifted considerably in Europe over the last decades. Three technology controversies on atoms, genes, and nanoscale sciences and nanotechnologies (NST) turned the style of communication from one-way information, participation and dialogues to the idea of an early and more democratic engagement of the public. Analyzing science communication developing over the three controversies, this article shows that what happened in one technology field fed forward to and contributed to shaping the subsequent field and that communication was initiated at a progressively earlier stage of technology development. The article concludes with an empirical analysis of six public engagement projects in NST, saying that the shift towards more democratic engagement of the public hasn't been as profound and complete as has been thought. This is particularly due to the continuing adoption of a simplistic contrast structure that opposes science and the public as two self-contained, antagonistic social entities.

Science communication as political communication

“…1 illustrates the basic mechanisms behind all these efforts-often summarized under the label "public engagement model" of science communication (32)(33)(34)(35). As Fig.…”

What does ‘acceptance’ mean? Public reflections on the idea that addiction is a brain disease

“…We are an interdisciplinary team with expertise in neuroscience, ethics, psychology, population health and anthropology interested in the public policy and public health implications of addiction neuroscience and our motivations were twofold: first, to offer theoretically informed analyses that contribute to a dialogue between advocates of addiction neuroscience, social scientists, neuroethicists and the broader public on addiction neuroscience; second, to meaningfully engage with the public in shaping social contexts that support the treatment of addicted individuals and minimise the harms of drug use (Kearnes et al, 2006;Kurath and Gisler, 2009). …”

Comunicación ambiental y proyectos energéticos renovables no convencionales. Análisis de contenido en medios de comunicación de masa chilenos

“…Conceptualizar la opinión pública por medio de constructos como escepticismo público (Zhou, 2015) o brechas de comprensión, particularmente en la versión denominada information gap (Nisbet, Cooper & Ellithorpe, 2014), parece apuntar a una supuesta objetividad de la comprensión científica, una posición difícilmente sostenible en el marco de la crisis de los paradigmas epistemológicos positivistas (Guba & Lincoln, 1994); a la vez, aquello sugiere una comprensión de la opinión pública unidimensional, que no valoriza sus diferencias, y contrapone racionalidad científica a la supuesta ignorancia o irracionalidad del público (Kurath & Gisler, 2009). …”