Advertisement

How to Engage with Publics

  • Claire Craig
Chapter

Abstract

It is helpful that the only language scientists and scholars of different disciplines truly have in common with each other is also that of the public. The processes for providing scientific evidence must accommodate multiple publics, including those associated with the law and markets. Recognising different forms of scientific expertise helps with their curation. Experience of public dialogue means no one need be surprised that engaged publics are typically cautiously optimistic about science but make very different judgements about specific uses in specific contexts. Discussing the details of scientific evidence need not become a lightning rod that distracts from wider questions of world view or values. Considering the different lenses through which to view controversial issues can help align decisions, evidence and stakeholder interests.

Keywords

Scientific expertise Public dialogue Social intelligence Lenses Hydraulic fracturing 

References

  1. Agar, J. (2012). Science in the twentieth century and beyond. Policy Press.Google Scholar
  2. British Science Association. (2015). Public attitudes to science survey. British Science Association, Ipsos Mori, Department for Busines, Innovation and Skills.Google Scholar
  3. Burrall, S. (2018). Rethink public engagement for gene editting. Nature, 555, 438–439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Collins, H. (2014). Are we all scientific experts now? Wiley.Google Scholar
  5. De Meyer, K. (2017, January 4). Brexit, Trump and “post-truth”: The science of how we become entrenched in our views. The Conversation, UK. Retrieved May 7, 2018, from https://theconversation.com
  6. Doubleday, R., & Teubner, R. (2012). Public dialogue review. Research Councils UK; Centre for Science and Policy; Involve; ScienceWise Expert Resource Centre.Google Scholar
  7. Edgerton, D. (2006). Welfare state: Britain, 1920–1970. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Jasanoff, S. (1990). The fifth branch: Science advisers as policymakers. Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Jasanoff, S., & Hurlbut, J. B. (2018). A global observatory for gene editting. Nature, 555, 435–437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Lentsch, J., & Weingart, P. (2009). Scientific advice to policy making: International comparison. Barbara Budrich Publishers.Google Scholar
  11. Mulgan, G. (2017). Big mind: How collective intelligence can change our world. Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Neuberger, D. (2016). Stop needless dispute of science in the courts. Nature, 531, 9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Owens, S. (2015). Knowledge, policy and expertise. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Sigman, M., & Ariely, D. (2017, April). How can groups make good decisions. TED Studio. Retrieved April 22, 2018, from https://www.ted.com/talks/mariano_sigman_and_dan_ariely_how_can_groups_make_good_decisions/up-next
  15. The Royal Society & The Royal Academy of Engineering. (2012). Shale gas extraction in the UK: A review of hudraulic fracturing. The Royal Society & The Royal Academy of Engineering. Retrieved April 22, 2018, from https://royalsociety.org

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Claire Craig
    • 1
  1. 1.Royal SocietyLondonUK

Personalised recommendations