Engaging the Public at a Science Festival: Findings From a Panel on Human Gene Editing
Abstract
Theoretically and methodologically sound research on the reach and impact of public engagement practices continues to lag behind. Using the 2015 Wisconsin Science Festival as context, we empirically investigate the impacts of a public engagement activity about a nascent and controversial scientific issue, human gene editing. Overall, we find the panel increased participants’ understanding of the complexities of human gene editing, as demonstrated by increases in knowledge and the moral acceptability of the technology among respondents, as well as the associated risk and benefit perceptions. Practical and theoretical implications for science festivals and public engagement with science activities are discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access and purchase options for this article.
References
Agresti A., Finlay B. (2009). Statistical methods for the social sciences (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Akin H., Hardy B., Brossard D., Scheufele D. A., Xenos M. A., Corley E. A. (2016, February). The pitfalls of popularizing science beyond the proverbial choir: Lessons from Cosmos 2.0. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Washington, DC.
Allum N., Sturgis P., Tabourazi D., Brunton-Smith I. (2008). Science knowledge and attitudes across cultures: a meta-analysis. Public Understanding of Science, 17, 35-54.
Anderson A. A., Brossard D., Scheufele D. A., Xenos M. A. (2012). Online talk: How exposure to disagreement in online comments affects beliefs in the promise of controversial science. In Phillips L., Carvalho A., Doyle J. (Eds.), Citizen voices: Performing public participation in science and environment communication (pp. 119-135). Chicago, IL: Intellect.
Bauer M. W., Petkova K., Boyadjieva P. (2000). Public knowledge of and attitudes to science: Alternative measures that may end the “science war.” Science, Technology & Human Values, 25, 30-51.
Bell L. (2008). Engaging the public in technology policy: A new role for science museums. Science Communication, 29(3), 386-398.
Besley J. C., Kramer V. L., Yao Q., Toumey C. (2008). Interpersonal discussion following citizen engagement about nanotechnology: What, if anything, do they say? Science Communication, 30, 209-235.
Binder A. R., Cacciatore M. A., Scheufele D. A., Shaw B. R., Corley E. A. (2012). Measuring risk/benefit perceptions of emerging technologies and their potential impact on communication of public opinion toward science. Public Understanding of Science, 21, 830-847.
Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council. (2010). Synthetic biology dialogue. Retrieved from http://www.bbsrc.ac.uk/engagement/dialogue/activities/synthetic-biology/
Bird S. P., Murphy M., Bake T., Albayrak Ö., Mercer J. G. (2013). Getting science to the citizen: “Food addiction” at the British Science Festival as a case study of interactive public engagement with high profile scientific controversy. Obesity Facts, 6, 103-108.
Blonder R., Rap S. (2013). It’s a small world after all: A nanotechnology activity in a science festival. Journal of Nano Education, 4, 47-56.
Brossard D., Lewenstein B. V. (2010). A critical appraisal of models of public understanding of science: Using practice to inform theory. In Kahlor L., Stout P. (Eds.), Communicating science: New agendas in communication (pp. 11-39). New York, NY: Routledge.
Brossard D., Scheufele D. A., Kim E., Lewenstein B. V. (2009). Religiosity as a perceptual filter: Examining processes of opinion formation about nanotechnology. Public Understanding of Science, 18, 546-558.
Brossard D., Shanahan J. (2006). Do they know what they read? Building a scientific literacy measurement instrument based on science media coverage. Science Communication, 28, 47-63.
Bultitude K. (2014). Science festivals: Do they succeed in reaching beyond the “already engaged”? Journal of Science Communication, 13(4), 1-3.
Burgess M. M. (2014). From “trust us” to participatory governance: Deliberative publics and science policy. Public Understanding of Science, 23, 48-52.
Chen D.-S., Deng C.-Y. (2007). Interaction between citizens and experts in public deliberation: A case study of consensus conferences in Taiwan. East Asian Science, Technology and Society, 1(1), 77-97.
Costa-Font M., Gil J. M., Traill W. B. (2008). Consumer acceptance, valuation of and attitudes towards genetically modified food: Review and implications for food policy. Food Policy, 33, 99-111.
Covello V. T. (1998). Risk perception and communication. In Proceedings of the North American Conference on Pesticide Spray Drift Management (pp. 161-186. Retrieved from http://s3.amazonaws.com/zanran_storage/pmo.umext.maine.edu/ContentPages/121836374.pdf
Currall S. C., King E. B., Lane N., Madera J., Turner S. (2006). What drives public acceptance of nanotechnology? Nat Nano, 1, 153-155.
Dijkstra A. M., Critchley C. R. (2016). Nanotechnology in Dutch science cafés: Public risk perceptions contextualised. Public Understanding of Science, 25, 71-87.
Dillman D. A., Smyth J. D., Christian L. M. (2014). Internet, phone, mail, and mixed-mode surveys: The tailored design method (4th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Durant J. (2013). The role of science festivals. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 110, 2681-2681.
Einsiedel E. F. (2002). Assessing a controversial medical technology: Canadian public consultations on xenotransplantation. Public Understanding of Science, 11, 315-331.
Einsiedel E. F., Eastlick D. L. (2000). Consensus conferences as deliberative democracy: Aa communications perspective. Science Communication, 21(4), 323-343.
Einsiedel E. F., Jelsøe E., Breck T. (2001). Publics at the technology table: The consensus conference in Denmark, Canada, and Australia. Public Understanding of Science, 10, 83-98.
Enserink M. (2004). Europe clones U.S. science festival. Science, 305(5689), 1387.
Eveland W. P., Cooper K. E. (2013). An integrated model of communication influence on beliefs. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 110(Suppl. 3), 14088-14095.
Felt U. (2003). Optimising public understanding of science and technology: Final report. Vienna, Austria: University of Vienna.
Finucane M. L., Alhakami A., Slovic P., Johnson S. M. (2000). The affect heuristic in judgments of risks and benefits. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 13, 1-17.
Fogg-Rogers L., Bay J. L., Burgess H., Purdy S. C. (2015). “Knowledge is power”: A mixed-methods study exploring adult audience preferences for engagement and learning formats over 3 years of a health science festival. Science Communication, 37, 419-451.
Gregory J., Miller S. (1998). Science in public. New York, NY: Perseus.
Hart Research Associates. (2013). Awareness & impressions of synthetic biology: A report of findings based on a national survey among adults. Washington, DC: Author.
Ho S. S., Brossard D., Scheufele D. A. (2008). Effects of value predispositions, mass media use, and knowledge on public attitudes toward embryonic stem cell research. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 20, 171-192.
Irwin A., Wynne B. (Eds.). (2003). Misunderstanding science? The public reconstruction of science and technology. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Jasanoff S., Benjamin Hurlbut J., Saha K. (2015). CRISER democracy: Gene editing and the need for inclusive deliberation. Issues in Science & Technology, 32, 25-32.
Johnson B. B. (1993). Advancing understanding of knowledge’s role in lay risk perception. Risk: Issues in Health & Safety, 4, 189-212.
Jones A. R., Anderson A. A., Yeo S. K., Greenberg A. E., Brossard D., Moore J. W. (2014). Using a deliberative exercise to foster public engagement in nanotechnology. Journal of Chemical Education, 91, 179-187.
Joss S. (1998). Danish consensus conferences as a model of participatory technology assessment: An impact study of consensus conferences on Danish Parliament and Danish public debate. Science and Public Policy, 25, 2-22.
Kim J., Yeo S. K., Brossard D., Scheufele D. A., Xenos M. A. (2014). Disentangling the influence of value predispositions and risk/benefit perceptions on support for nanotechnology among the American public. Risk Analysis, 34, 965-980.
Knight A. J. (2005). Differential effects of perceived and objective knowledge measures on perceptions of biotechnology. AgBioForum, 8, 221-227.
Ladwig P., Dalrymple K. E., Brossard D., Scheufele D. A., Corley E. A. (2012). Perceived familiarity or factual knowledge? Comparing operationalizations of scientific understanding. Science and Public Policy, 39, 761-774.
Leshner A. I. (2003). Public engagement with science. Science, 299, 977-977.
Longstaff H., Secko D. M. (2016). Assessing the quality of a deliberative democracy mini-public event about advanced biofuel production and development in Canada. Public Understanding of Science, 25, 252-261.
Lupia A. (2013). Communicating science in politicized environments. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 110(Suppl. 3), 14048-14054.
Manning C., Lin K., Goodman I. F. (2013). The Science Festival Alliance: Creating a sustainable national network of science festivals. Cambridge, MA: Goodman Research Group.
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2016). Science literacy: Concepts, contexts, and consequences. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
Nielsen K. H., Balling G., Hope T., Nakamura M. (2015). Sipping science: The interpretative flexibility of science cafés in Denmark and Japan. East Asian Science, Technology and Society, 9, 1-21.
Petts J. (2007). Learning about learning: Lessons from public engagement and deliberation on urban river restoration. Geographical Journal, 173, 300-311.
Pew Research Center. (2016). U.S. public wary of biomedical technologies to “enhance” human abilities. Washington, DC: Author.
Pidgeon N., Rogers-Hayden T. (2007). Opening up nanotechnology dialogue with the publics: Risk communication or ‘upstream engagement’? Health, Risk & Society, 9, 191-210.
Purdue D. (1999). Experiments in the governance of biotechnology: A case study of the UK National Consensus Conference. New Genetics & Society, 18(1), 79.
Sardo A. M., Grand A. (2016). Science in culture: Audiences’ perspective on engaging with science at a summer festival. Science Communication, 38, 251-260.
Scheufele D. A. (2006). Messages and heuristics: How audiences form attitudes about emerging technologies. In Turney J. (Ed.), Engaging science: Thoughts, deeds, analysis and action (pp. 20-25): London, England: Wellcome Trust.
Scheufele D. A. (2013). Communicating science in social settings. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 110(Suppl. 3), 14040-14047.
Scheufele D. A. (2014). Science communication as political communication. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 111(Suppl. 4), 13585-13592.
Scheufele D. A., Corley E. A., Shih T.-J., Dalrymple K. E., Ho S. S. (2009). Religious beliefs and public attitudes toward nanotechnology in Europe and the United States. Nat Nano, 4, 91-94.
Scheufele D. A., Lewenstein B. V. (2005). The public and nanotechnology: How citizens make sense of emerging technologies. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 7, 659-667.
Slovic P. (1987). Perception of risk. Science, 236(4799), 280-285.
STAT & Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health. (2016). The public and genetic editing, testing, and therapy. Retrieved from https://cdn1.sph.harvard.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/94/2016/01/STAT-Harvard-Poll-Jan-2016-Genetic-Technology.pdf
Stilgoe J., Lock S. J., Wilsdon J. (2014). Why should we promote public engagement with science? Public Understanding of Science, 23, 4-15.
Su L. Y.-F., Cacciatore M. A., Scheufele D. A., Brossard D., Xenos M. A. (2014). Inequalities in scientific understanding: Differentiating between factual and perceived knowledge gaps. Science Communication, 36, 352-378.
von Roten F. C. (2011). In search of a new public for scientific exhibitions or festivals: The lead of casual visitors. Journal of Science Communication, 10, 1-8.
Wachelder J. (2003). Democratizing science: Various routes and visions of Dutch science shops. Science, Technology & Human Values, 28, 244-273.
Wall J. (2014). Program evaluation model: 9-step process. Retrieved from http://www.janetwall.net/attachments/File/9_Step_Evaluation_Model_Paper.pdf
Wallquist L., Visschers V. H. M., Siegrist M. (2010). Impact of knowledge and misconceptions on benefit and risk perception of CCS. Environmental Science & Technology, 44, 6557-6562.
Weitkamp E. (2015). A question of (audience) reach. Journal of Science Communication, 14(3). Retrieved from https://jcom.sissa.it/sites/default/files/documents/JCOM_1403_2015_E.pdf
Wisconsin Science Festival. (2015). Wisconsin Science Festival at a glance. Retrieved from https://www.wisconsinsciencefest.org/about.wsf
Yeo S. K., Cacciatore M. A., Brossard D., Scheufele D. A., Runge K., Su L. Y., . . . Corley E. A. (2013). Partisan amplification of risk: American perceptions of nuclear energy risk in the wake of the Fukushima Daiichi disaster. Energy Policy, 67, 727-736.
Zhu X., Xie X. (2015). Effects of knowledge on attitude formation and change toward genetically modified foods. Risk Analysis, 35, 790-810.
Biographies
Kathleen M. Rose is a doctoral student in the Department of Life Sciences Communication at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. She studies public opinion and understanding of controversial scientific and environmental issues.
Kaine Korzekwa is the marketing and communications specialist for the Department of Biochemistry at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. He is also a freelance science writer. He earned a master’s from the Department of Life Sciences Communication at the University of Wisconsin-Madison in 2016, studying the effects of public outreach activities like science festivals.
Dominique Brossard is chair and a professor in the Department of Life Sciences Communication at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. Her research program focuses on the intersection between science, media, and policy in the context of controversial scientific innovations.
Dietram A. Scheufele is the John E. Ross professor in Science Communication and Vilas Distinguished Achievement Professor at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and in the Morgridge Institute for Research. His research examines the role of media and other emerging modes of communication in shaping public understanding of emerging technologies.
Laura Heisler is director of Programming in the Morgridge Institute for Research and the Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation. She is also the director and cofounder of the Wisconsin Science Festival.
Cite article
Cite article
Cite article
OR
Download to reference manager
If you have citation software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice
Information, rights and permissions
Information
Published In
Article first published online: March 25, 2017
Issue published: April 2017
Keywords
History
Published online: March 25, 2017
Issue published: April 2017
Authors
Metrics and citations
Metrics
Article usage*
Total views and downloads: 1830
*Article usage tracking started in December 2016
Altmetric
See the impact this article is making through the number of times it’s been read, and the Altmetric Score.
Learn more about the Altmetric Scores
Articles citing this one
Web of Science: 26 view articles Opens in new tab
Crossref: 22
- A triangulated approach for understanding scientists’ perceptions of p...
- How are public engagement health festivals evaluated? A systematic rev...
- Science Cafés: Exploring Adults’ Motivation to Learn Science in a Comm...
- Whose AI? How different publics think about AI and its social impacts
- Science festivals and the cultivation of science capital: a retrospect...
- Toward anticipatory governance of human genome editing: a critical rev...
- Why scientists agree to participate in science festivals: evidence fro...
- Attempts to Categorize and Evaluate Science Festivals, a 30-Year-Old S...
- The Fabric of the Public in Debates About Gene Editing
- Increased awareness and decreased acceptance of genome-editing technol...
- Looking Back to Think Ahead: Reflections on Science Festival Evaluatio...
- Sharing the pi: are incentives an effective method of attracting a mor...
- Reexamining the Ethics of Human Germline Editing in the Wake of Scanda...
- Understanding Engagement with Science Festivals: Who Are the Engaged?
- Public Acceptability of Gene Therapy and Gene Editing for Human Use: A...
- Meaning of Ambiguity: A Japanese Survey on Synthetic Biology and Genom...
- From engaging publics to engaging knowledges: Enacting “appropriatenes...
- New, Not Different: Data-Driven Perspectives on Science Festival Audie...
- Predicting Public Attitudes Toward Gene Editing of Germlines: The Impa...
- Science communication is not an end in itself: (dis)assembling the sci...
- Inspired by the Cosmos: Strategies for Public Engagement in Nonpolicy ...
- Information-Sharing and Community-Building: Exploring the Use of Twitt...
Figures and tables
Figures & Media
Tables
View Options
Get access
Access options
If you have access to journal content via a personal subscription, university, library, employer or society, select from the options below:
loading institutional access options
Alternatively, view purchase options below:
Purchase 24 hour online access to view and download content.
Access journal content via a DeepDyve subscription or find out more about this option.
