Responsible scientists and a citizens' panel: new storylines for creative engagement between science and the public

Uncertainties over emerging technologies and their potential effect on society and the environment often lead to controversy between scientists, policymakers and the public. Opening up the debates and involving citizens and social scientists early in the process of developing new technology is one way of responding to this issue of governance. By doing so, the hope is that the ethical implications and acceptability of new science can be more carefully considered and framed in a responsible and democratised context. To explore an example of aspiration in practice, a series of interdisciplinary public engagement events was organised at Durham University under the title New Storylines for Living with Environmental Change: Citizens' Perspectives. In this commentary we report on one of these events, a one-day workshop entitled Responsible Science and Public Engagement, where a citizens' panel aimed to explore ways of conducting deliberative engagement with scientists using the creative arts and a scientific dilemmas cafe format.

[1]  Matthew Kearnes,et al.  From Bio to Nano: Learning Lessons from the UK Agricultural Biotechnology Controversy , 2006 .

[2]  S. Lane,et al.  Doing flood risk science differently: an experiment in radical scientific method , 2011 .

[3]  Bruno Latour,et al.  Politics of Nature: How to Bring the Sciences into Democracy , 1999 .

[4]  Brian Wynne,et al.  In risk assessment, one has to admit ignorance , 2002, Nature.

[5]  A. Irwin.  The Politics of Talk , 2006 .

[6]  M. Crang.  Qualitative methods: touchy, feely, look-see? , 2003 .

[7]  Gillian Rose,et al.  Visual Methodologies: An Introduction to the Interpretation of Visual Materials , 2001 .

[8]  H. Geoghegan,et al.  Human geographies of climate change: Landscape, temporality, and lay knowledges , 2011 .

[9]  D. Tolia‐Kelly.  The geographies of cultural geography II , 2012 .

[10]  Amanda Rogers.  Geographies of the Performing Arts: Landscapes, Places and Cities , 2012 .

[11]  Kate Moles,et al.  The spatial practice of public engagement: ‘doing’ geography in the South Wales valleys , 2013 .

[12]  H. Geoghegan,et al.  On climate change and cultural geography: farming on the Lizard Peninsula, Cornwall, UK , 2012, Climatic Change.

[13]  David G. Anderson.  Identity and Ecology in Arctic Siberia: The Number One Reindeer Brigade , 2000 .

[14]  Simon Joss.  Public participation in science and technology policy- and decision-making — ephemeral phenomenon or lasting change? , 1999 .

[15]  B. Wynne,et al.  Misunderstanding science? : the public reconstruction of science and technology , 1996 .

[16]  Malcolm Miles,et al.  Representing nature: art and climate change , 2010 .

[17]  Jennifer Gabrys,et al.  Climate change and the imagination , 2011 .

[18]  Kathy Sykes,et al.  Responsible Innovation – Opening Up Dialogue and Debate , 2013 .

[19]  How we talk when we talk about nano: The future in laypeople's talk , 2011 .

[20]  Kathryn Yusoff.  Biopolitical Economies and the Political Aesthetics of Climate Change , 2010 .

[21]  S. Whatmore.  Mapping knowledge controversies: science, democracy and the redistribution of expertise , 2009 .

[22]  Matthew Kearnes,et al.  Nanotechnology, Governance, and Public Deliberation: What Role for the Social Sciences? , 2005 .

[23]  Rolf Lidskog,et al.  Risk, communication and trust: Towards an emotional understanding of trust , 2014, Public understanding of science.

[24]  Jennifer Gabrys,et al.  Arts, Sciences and Climate Change: Practices and Politics at the Threshold , 2012 .

[25]  M. Callon,et al.  How to Study the Force of Science , 1986 .

[26]  Rinie van Est,et al.  The Broad Challenge of Public Engagement in Science , 2011, Sci. Eng. Ethics.

[27]  Converging citizens? Nanotechnology and the political imaginary of public engagement in Brazil and the United Kingdom , 2011 .

[28]  J. Pielke.  The Honest Broker: Making Sense of Science in Policy and Politics , 2007 .

[29]  Bronislaw Szerszynski,et al.  Living the global social experiment : an analysis of public discourse on solar radiation management and its implications for governance. , 2013 .

[30]  Andrew Stirling,et al.  Deliberative Mapping: Appraising options for addressing the kidney gap, final report prepared for the Wellcome Trust , 2003 .

[31]  M. Callon,et al.  Acting in an Uncertain World: An Essay on Technical Democracy , 2009 .

[32]  Stephen Hilgartner,et al.  Science on stage : expert advice as public drama , 2000 .

[33]  M. Callon.  The Role of Lay People in the Production and Dissemination of Scientific Knowledge , 1999 .

[34]  B. Latour,et al.  Making Things Public : Atmospheres of Democracy , 2005 .

[35]  Torben Elgaard Jensen,et al.  The good, the bad and the perfect: Criticizing engagement practice , 2013 .

[36]  Harriet Hawkins,et al.  Geography and art. An expanding field , 2013 .

[37]  B. Wynne.  Elephants in the rooms where publics encounter “science”?: A response to Darrin Durant, “Accounting for expertise: Wynne and the autonomy of the lay public” , 2008 .

[38]  P. Macnaghten,et al.  Governing Risky Technologies , 2012 .

[39]  T. Ingold.  The perception of the environment : essays on livelihood, dwelling and skill , 2000 .

[40]  James Wilsdon,et al.  See-Through Science : Why Public Engagement Needs to Move Upstream , 2004 .