Open science: policy implications for the evolving phenomenon of user-led scientific innovation

Emerging technologies such as genomics, nanotechnology, and converging technologies are surrounded by a constellation of fashionable stereotyped phrases such as 'public engagement in science', 'responsible innovation', 'green technology', or 'personalised medicine'. Buzzwords are ubiquitous and used ad libitum by science policy makers, industrial companies in their advertisements, scientists in their research proposals, and journalists. Despite their proliferation in the language of scientific and technological innovation, these buzzwords have attracted little attention among science studies scholars. The purpose of this paper is to try to understand if, and how buzzwords shape the technoscientific landscape. What do they perform? What do they reveal? What do they conceal? Based on a case study of the phrase 'public engagement in science', this paper describes buzzwords as linguistic technologies, capable of three major performances: buzzwords generate matters of concern and play an important role in trying to build consensus; they set attractive goals and agendas; they create unstable collectives through noise.

Interdisciplinary team science involves research collaboration among investigators from different disciplines who work interdependently to share leadership and responsibility. Although over the past several decades there has been an increase in knowledge produced by science teams, the public has not been meaningfully engaged in this process. We argue that contemporary changes in how science is understood and practiced offer an opportunity to reconsider engaging the public as active participants on teams and coin the term participatory team science to describe public engagement in team science. We discuss how public engagement can enhance knowledge within the team to address complex problems and suggest a different organizing framework for team science that aligns better with how teams operate and with participatory approaches to research. We also summarize work on public engagement in science, describe opportunities for various types of engagement, and provide an example of participatory team science carried out across research phases. We conclude by discussing implications of participatory team science for psychology, including changing the default when assembling an interdisciplinary science team by identifying meaningful roles for public engagement through participatory team science. (PsycINFO Database Record

This article examines the visions of citizens' ideal practices regarding technoscientific affairs in a democratic society, namely "imaginaries of model citizens," that underlie three science and public initiatives: public understanding of science, public engagement in science, and citizen science. While imaginaries of citizens are performative and necessary to these initiatives, they are often relegated to the background. I argue that such imaginaries are the result of a complex of perceptions on the nature of science, the role of democracy in scientific activities, and the form of "democratizing" science. The imaginary of model citizens in public understanding of science is of literate citizens who should know science sufficiently, use it in daily life, and support science; in public engagement in science, the model citizen is a responsible one who should engage in the governance of technoscientific issues; and in citizen science, a contributive one who should partake in and enjoy creating scientific knowledge.

Public engagement in science and technology has grown in importance as developments in science and technology make increasingly significant impacts on people's lives. Now, efforts to engage publics in social decision-making or consensus-building regarding science and technology involve participation, learning or deliberation opportunities, as well as interactive or coproductive efforts among various sectors in society based on the recognition of scientific activities as a part of social operations - even those performed by scientific communities. We have conducted a community engagement program in the HapMap project, the international human genome program, in Japan since 2002. Consequent upon our various approaches to engage Japanese publics, a range of observations were made, such as that: public engagement is not yet recognized or institutionalized in Japan; there is a wide gap between science and society; and the implications of public engagement in a Japanese context have not been examined enthusiastically, especially from the perspectives of political decision making, social consensus-building or self-determination. In this paper, we provide an overview of public engagement in Japan, and discuss issues and challenges raised by the HapMap community engagement project. We also discuss the implications of public engagement for social decision-making and self-determination, and explore the prospects for public engagement in science and technology in Japan.

Even a cursory reading of the public engagement in science (PES) literature over the past decade reveals that public engagement is becoming part of the “orthodoxy of 21st century science policy” (Stilgoe, Nanodialogues: experiments in public engagement with science, 2007, p 16), Moving forward, there appears to be strong consensus that (1) public engagement is an essential component for shaping sound science policies, research agendas, and governance structures; (2) more opportunities for accessible and successful PES need to be developed and implemented to have meaningful impact; and (3) a broader and more diverse range of publics need to be reached through PES activities. This article explores the role that U.S. science museums and centers could play in creating and delivering PES programming focusing on current science and technology developments and issues, with particular attention to nanoscience and nanotechnology. Also addressed will be some of the factors that support increased PES involvement by museums, some of the challenges museums need to overcome to sustain ongoing PES, and several recommendations to achieve broader PES impact through science museum participation.

BackgroundThe policy imperative to engage the public and patients in research can be seen as part of a wider shift in the research environment. This study addresses the question: Has there been a shift in attitudes to Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) and Public Engagement in Science (PES) amongst researchers?MethodsAttitudes to PPI and PES within a cluster of three NIHR supported Biomedical Research Centres were explored through in‐depth interviews with 19 researchers.ResultsParticipants distinguished PPI (as an activity involving patients and carers in research projects and programmes) from PES (as an activity that aims to communicate research findings to the public, engage the public with broader issues of science policy or promote a greater understanding of the role of science in society). While participants demonstrated a range of attitudes to these practices, they shared a resistance to sharing power and control of the research process with the public and patients.ConclusionWhile researchers were prepared to engage with the public and patients and listed the advantages of engagement, the study revealed few differences in their underlying attitudes towards the role of society in science (and science in society) to those reported in previous studies. To the participants science remains the preserve of scientists, with patients and the public invited to ‘tinker at the edges’.

Public Engagement in Science and Technology

Most Koreans agree that science and technology are critically necessary for national development and individual welfare, and that scientists are important people who work hard to develop science and technology as a foundation of the country’s economic growth. However, technological and scientific skills were not always respected in traditional Korean society. The modernization of science and technology was neglected due to successive historical incidents that occurred in Korea. However, science communication has played a role in changing sociocultural attitudes toward science and technology. Over the past few decades, institutions of science and government have adopted three different phases of science communication: popularization of science, public understanding of science and then public engagement in science. In the first phase, popularization of science was a government-led promotion of science to efficiently deploy scientific knowledge from top to bottom. In the second phase, public understanding of science was enhanced by inducing people to participate in scientific events and exhibitions hosted by non-government organizations. Finally, in the third phase, public engagement in science was increased by emphasizing social responsibility and citizen participation in the development of scientific and technological policies. Despite considerable success in diffusing scientific knowledge to the public, Korea is still experiencing problems resolving some science issues, as differences in judgment make it difficult to reach a consensus on science and technology policies. This implies that scientific knowledge alone cannot resolve the differences, and that the process of judgment needs to be highlighted. The process of judgment can be improved by using scientific methods of thinking and problem solving, rather than just accumulating scientific knowledge.

BackgroundExperience with public engagement activities regarding the risks and benefits of science and technology (S&T) is growing, especially in the industrialized world. However, public engagement in the developing world regarding S&T risks and benefits to explore health issues has not been widely explored.MethodsThis paper gives an overview about public engagement and related concepts, with a particular focus on challenges and benefits in the developing world. We then describe an Internet-based platform, which seeks to both inform and engage youth and the broader public on global water issues and their health impacts. Finally, we outline a possible course for future action to scale up this and similar online public engagement platforms.ResultsThe benefits of public engagement include creating an informed citizenry, generating new ideas from the public, increasing the chances of research being adopted, increasing public trust, and answering ethical research questions. Public engagement also fosters global communication, enables shared experiences and methodology, standardizes strategy, and generates global viewpoints. This is especially pertinent to the developing world, as it encourages previously marginalized populations to participate on a global stage. One of the core issues at stake in public engagement is global governance of science and technology. Also, beyond benefiting society at large, public engagement in science offers benefits to the scientific enterprise itself.ConclusionSuccessful public engagement with developing world stakeholders will be a critical part of implementing new services and technologies. Interactive engagement platforms, such as the Internet, have the potential to unite people globally around relevant health issues.

Timely public engagement in science presents a broad challenge. It includes more than research into the ethical, legal and social dimensions of science and state-initiated citizen’s participation. Introducing a public perspective on science while safeguarding its public value involves a diverse set of actors: natural scientists and engineers, technology assessment institutes, policy makers, social scientists, citizens, interest organisations, artists, and last, but not least, politicians.

"Public engagement in science" is one of the buzzwords that, since 2000, has been used in nanotechnology programs. To what extent does public engagement disrupt the traditional relations between science and the public? This paper briefly contrasts the traditional model of science communication - the diffusionist model - that prevailed in the twentieth century and the new model - the participatory model - that tends to prevail nowadays. Then it will try to disentangle the assumptions underlying the public dialogue initiated about nanotechnology, and conclude that nanotechnology actually develops a managerial model of society.

Community‐driven science and science education: Living in and navigating the edges of equity, justice, and science learning

Background“Public engagement” in science is a term that covers a broad spectrum of activities undertaken by the scientific community. The precise definitions are constantly evolving to incorporate new means of engagement, facilitated by emerging technologies. Global health research is amenable to community engagement and popularization, but it is difficult to know which strategies work best to attract considerable attention from the public.MethodsThis is a review of the articles and documents that address the question of public engagement with topics in medical sciences, particularly in global health. Semantic searches were conducted using Google Scholar rather than indexed databases due to poor indexing of the topic. More than 1000 titles were screened and 48 articles were retained as most useful. It then moves to a more specific topic of the online public engagement in global health.ResultsThe review presents the attempts to define public engagement in science and its general importance, particularly in the field of global health. Examples of the latter include tobacco use, vaccination, and maternal and child health. In reviewing effective approaches to public engagement in global health through online video campaigns, it studies the examples of crowdfunding, USAID’s First Public Engagement Campaign, World Health Organization's Social Media Campaigns and the impact of Global Health Media Project.ConclusionsThis review reveals three key gaps in the understanding of determinants of effective online public engagement in global health. The mixed results of traditional mass media campaigns in global health emphasise the calls for more research on message content. A framework for effective message content would help in both raising awareness of key issues and creating behaviour change in the general public. Moreover, it is surprising to find no formal research on what constitutes effective video content in global health. Finally, few studies considered important metrics to track in social media campaigns. There is a clear need to investigate which video features are effective in global health online public engagement. Success will be defined through key video marketing metrics and tracked in order to isolate effective content features.

Citizen science is often assumed to increase public science engagement; however, little is known about who is likely to volunteer and the implications for greater societal impact. This study segments 1,145 potential volunteers into six groups according to their current engagement in science (EiS). Results show groups with high levels of EiS are significantly more interested in volunteering and more likely to participate in various research roles than those with lower EiS scores. While citizen science benefits some in science and society, its use as a strategy to bring about positive shifts in public science engagement needs to be reconsidered.

Crowdfunding for science has been hailed both as an important means of funding early-career scholars and innovative research projects, and as a novel approach to communicating with and enabling participation by members of the public. The experiences of scientists who have sought crowdfunding and the opportunities and challenges that this entails are analyzed to critically examine claims (by platforms and in previous studies) about the democratizing potential of crowdfunding for ‘opening up’ research funding and ‘engaging’ members of the public in scientific research. Interview accounts of scientists indicate that crowdfunding can provide crucial support for under-resourced researchers as well as research projects, and that it offers a relatively unique opportunity for communicating science and enabling public participation in several aspects of the scientific research process. However, these accounts also reveal that seeking crowdfunding gives rise to several practical, social, and professional issues, such as increasing the burden of labour on already disadvantaged researchers, straining relationships with colleagues, tarnishing one’s professional status, and ultimately exacerbating inequalities among scientists. Moreover, the ostensible promise of crowdfunding for enhancing science communication and public engagement in science is undercut by the failure of both crowdfunding platforms and campaigners to take the potential non-monetary contributions or expertise of non-scientists seriously. Rather than acknowledging the potential for two-way dialogue and public participation that crowdfunding platforms can potentially provide, public input is formatted as a financial transaction, which reduces the ability of publics to influence crowdfunded projects in a meaningful manner and therefore greatly diminishes their democratic potential.