On being a (modern) scientist: risks of public engagement in the UK interspecies embryo debate

Abstract

In 2006, a small group of UK academic scientists made headlines when they proposed the creation of interspecies embryos – mixing human and animal genetic material. A public campaign was fought to mobilize support for the research. Drawing on interviews with the key scientists involved, this paper argues that engaging the public through communicating their ideas via the media can result in tensions between the necessity of, and inherent dangers in, scientists campaigning on controversial issues. Some scientists believed that communicating science had damaged their professional standing in the eyes of their peers, who, in turn, policed the boundaries around what they believed constituted a “good” scientist. Tensions between promoting “science” versus promotion of the “scientist;” engaging the public versus publishing peer-reviewed articles and winning grants; and building expectations versus overhyping the science reveal the difficult choices scientists in the modern world have to make over the potential gains and risks of communicating science. We conclude that although scientists' participation in public debates is often encouraged, the rewards of such engagement remain. Moreover, this participation can detrimentally affect scientists' careers.

A 'work in progress'?: UK researchers and participation in public engagement

“…The effect of this is that public engagement activities -and, previously, public understanding of science activities -have tended towards being a relatively low priority for most researchers, and such activities are inevitably often squeezed out by more pressing matters (Wellcome Trust, 2000;Royal Society, 2005;Royal Society, 2006;Burchell et al, 2009;Vitae-PIRLS, 2011;Vitae-PIRLS, 2013;Porter et al, 2012;Watermeyer, 2015;Pew Research Center, 2015). Watermeyer (2015) has considered the place of researchers within this ambiguous set of various and shifting objectives and priorities that are experienced by researchers via the institutions in which they work and the institutions that fund their research.…”

How UK psychiatric geneticists understand and talk about engaging the public

“…Prestigious prizes are awarded to those who promote the public understanding of science and funding applications have sections to complete on public engagement. Accordingly, with the terms and conditions under which science is produced, circulated, and accredited changing (Porter et al 2012), explorations of the ways in which "scientists" conceptualize ideas of "the public" and "publics," and their motivations to "engage" are particularly timely (Davies 2008;Poliakoff and Webb 2007;Stilgoe 2007).…”

Responsible research and innovation: A manifesto for empirical ethics?

“…For example, a burgeoning body of work within social science has drawn attention to some of the specific institutional pressures that generate over-optimistic portrayals of the impact of innovations. 20 Rödder has noted that increased competition for research funding has meant that scientists and institutions are forced to market themselves to the public and ‘key stakeholders’. 21 This has brought about the expansion and professionalisation of science press officers, 22 , 23 whose role demands that science and research findings are presented in a manner that will attract the attention of journalists.…”