See-Through Science : Why Public Engagement Needs to Move Upstream

Spurred on by controversies over BSE, GM crops and nanotechnology, scientists gradually started to involve the public in their work. They looked first to education as the answer, then to processes of dialogue and participation. But these efforts have not yet proved sufficient. Scientists need to find ways of listening to and valuing more diverse forms of public knowledge. Only by opening up innovation processes at an early stage can we ensure that science contributes to the common good. Debates about risk are important. But the public also want answers to the more fundamental questions at stake in any new technology: Who owns it? Who benefits from it? To what purposes will it be directed? In this influential 2004 Demos report, James Wilsdon and Rebecca Willis argued that public engagement had to move upstream. The pamphlet offers practical guidance for scientists, policymakers, research councils businesses and NGOs – anyone who is trying to make engagement work.

[1]  Brian Wynne,et al.  Risk As Globalising "Democratic" Discourse? Framing Subjects And Citizens , 2006 .

[2]  S. Krimsky,et al.  Science in the private interest: has the lure of profits corrupted biomedical research? , 2006, IEEE Technology and Society Magazine.

[3]  A. Stirling.  Opening Up Or Closing Down? Analysis, Participation And Power In The Social Appraisal Of Technology , 2005 .

[4]  J. Marshall.  Open Innovation: The New Imperative for Creating and Profiting from Technology , 2004 .

[5]  Ramya B. Nagaraja.  Converging Technologies for Improving Human Performance , 2004 .

[6]  Roger E. Kasperson,et al.  Power to the People: How the Coming Energy Revolution Will Transform an Industry, Change Our Lives, and Maybe Even Save the Planet , 2003 .

[7]  Mike Michael,et al.  Prepublication Copy of , 2009 .

[8]  Henning Schmidgen,et al.  Science on stage : expert advice as public drama , 2003 .

[9]  R. Derwent,et al.  Late lessons from early warnings: the Precautionary Principle 1896–2000 , 2002 .

[10]  R. Willis,et al.  Mind over Matter:Greening the new economy , 2001 .

[11]  M. Gibbons,et al.  Re-Thinking Science: Knowledge and the Public in an Age of Uncertainty , 2003 .

[12]  B. Cooke,et al.  Participation: the New Tyranny? , 2001 .

[13]  F. Fischer.  Citizens, Experts, and the Environment: The Politics of Local Knowledge , 2000 .

[14]  Thomas J. Misa,et al.  Managing technology in society: the approach of constructive technology assessment , 1997 .

[15]  Simon Joss,et al.  Public participation in science : the role of consensus conferences in Europe , 1995 .

[16]  S. Fuller.  Science As Salvation: A Modern Myth and Its Meaning , 1994 .

[17]  David Parkinson,et al.  Risk: Analysis, perception and management. report of a Royal Society Study Group: Pp 201. The Royal Society. 1992. Paperback £15.50 ISBN 0 85403 467 6 , 1993 .

[18]  D. Selkoe,et al.  Rio Declaration on Environment and Development , 1992 .

[19]  Zygmunt Bauman,et al.  Modernity and Ambivalence , 1990 .

[20]  E. F. Schumacher,et al.  Small is beautiful , 1987, Nature.

[21]  K. Eric Drexler,et al.  Engines of Creation: the Coming Era of Nanotechnology , 1986 .

[22]  S. E..  The public understanding of science , 1974 .

[23]  Richard Latta,et al.  Designs in Nature , 1973 .