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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Again, the terms are used differently by different users. Here, public dialogue refers to structured engagement in which experts and publics work together. Engagement covers a wider range of events, such as panels, debates and other forms of communication with elements of interaction.
References
Agar, J. (2012). Science in the twentieth century and beyond. Policy Press.
British Science Association. (2015). Public attitudes to science survey. British Science Association, Ipsos Mori, Department for Busines, Innovation and Skills.
Burrall, S. (2018). Rethink public engagement for gene editting. Nature, 555, 438–439.
Collins, H. (2014). Are we all scientific experts now? Wiley.
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
Doubleday, R., & Teubner, R. (2012). Public dialogue review. Research Councils UK; Centre for Science and Policy; Involve; ScienceWise Expert Resource Centre.
Edgerton, D. (2006). Welfare state: Britain, 1920–1970. Cambridge University Press.
Jasanoff, S. (1990). The fifth branch: Science advisers as policymakers. Harvard University Press.
Jasanoff, S., & Hurlbut, J. B. (2018). A global observatory for gene editting. Nature, 555, 435–437.
Lentsch, J., & Weingart, P. (2009). Scientific advice to policy making: International comparison. Barbara Budrich Publishers.
Mulgan, G. (2017). Big mind: How collective intelligence can change our world. Princeton University Press.
Neuberger, D. (2016). Stop needless dispute of science in the courts. Nature, 531, 9.
Owens, S. (2015). Knowledge, policy and expertise. Oxford University Press.
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
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
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Craig, C. (2019). How to Engage with Publics. In: How Does Government Listen to Scientists?. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-96086-9_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-96086-9_4
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-96085-2
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-96086-9
eBook Packages: Political Science and International StudiesPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)