Anne M. Dijkstra

Communicative Aspects of the Public-Science Relationship Explored: Results of Focus Group Discussions About Biotechnology and Genomics.

Communication and the way this communication process is perceived by different publics is part of the public-science relationship. This article presents qualitative data with respect to biotechnology and genomics communication and identifies similarities and differences among publics in various roles. Focus group discussions were conducted with members of the general public, active consumers, patients, and genomics experts in the Netherlands. The analysis demonstrated that these publics prefer varied communication approaches that depend on their particular roles, with varying possibilities of participation. In all cases, transparency and openness as basic communication elements have to be fulfilled to gain trust from these publics.

Public opinions about human enhancement can enhance the expert-only debate. A review study

Human enhancement, the non-medical use of biomedical technologies to improve the human body or performance beyond their ‘natural’ limitations, is a growing trend. At the same time, the use of these technologies has societal consequences. In societal debates about human enhancement, however, it is mainly the voices of experts that are being heard, and little is known about the public’s understanding of human enhancement. The views of the public can give valuable insights, and can, in turn, supplement experts’ voices in political decision-making as has been argued before for other emerging technologies. This study presents a systematic literature review of current public perceptions and attitudes towards technologies for human enhancement. Results show that the public’s view has not been assessed often. Studies originate mainly from western-oriented countries and cover a broad range of enhancement technologies. In the studies, the majority of respondents hold moderate to strong negative attitudes towards enhancement technologies for non-medical applications, although the type of technology influences these opinions. The study provides an overview of what is known about citizens’ attitudes towards technologies for human enhancement.

Public participation in genomics research in the Netherlands: Validating a measurement scale:

Nowadays, new technologies, like genomics, cannot be developed without the support of the public. However, although interested, the public does not always actively participate in science issues when offered the opportunity via public participation activities. In a study aimed at validating a measurement scale, first, we investigated if public participation existed, and, secondly, we investigated how levels of public participation in genomics research varied among groups. Finally, we studied which factors predicted public participation. Results were based on a questionnaire with four subsamples. Results confirmed, first of all, the internal consistency of the measurement scale to assess levels of public participation. Secondly, the groups differed significantly with regard to their levels of participation in genomics research. Finally, the findings revealed that information-seeking behaviour, knowledge and education were main predictors of public participation, while interest, social involvement, and trust and influence had some influence together with age and gender.

Nanotechnology in Dutch science cafés: Public risk perceptions contextualised

Understanding public perceptions of and attitudes to nanotechnology is important in order to understand and facilitate processes of dialogue and public participation. This research quantitatively analysed risk perceptions and attitudes of Dutch science café participants (n = 233) and compared these with members of the Dutch public (n = 378) who had not attended a café but were interested in science and technology as well. A qualitative analysis of the meetings contextualised and enriched the quantitative findings. Both groups shared similar key attitudes and were positive about nanotechnology while the Dutch café participants were even more positive about nanotechnology than the group of non-participants. The perception that nanotechnology would lead to risk applications was only predictive of attitudes for the non-participants. The qualitative analysis showed that café participants and speakers considered discussion of the risks, benefits and related issues important. Further research could investigate how science cafés can play a role in the science–society debate.

The science-media interaction in biomedical research in the Netherlands. Opinions of scientists and journalists on the science-media relationship

Scientists’ participation in science communication and public engagement activities is considered important and a duty. However, in particular, the science-media relationship has not been studied frequently. In this paper, we present findings from interviews with both scientists and journalists which were guided by the Theory of Planned Behavior. Results show that different behavioural, normative and control beliefs underlie scientists’ and journalists’ participation in science-media interactions. Both groups are positive about science-media interactions, but scientists perceive various disadvantages in this relationship while journalists perceive mainly practical barriers. Enhancing mutual understanding and further research is suggested.

Analysing dutch Science cafés to better understand the science-society relationship

Science cafes offer a place for information and discussion for all who are interested in science and its broader implications for society. In this paper, science cafes are explored as a means of informal science dialogue in order to gain more understanding of the science-society relationship. Perspectives of visitors, organisers and moderators of science cafes were analysed. Findings show that science cafes stimulate discussion and engagement via informal learning processes. Visitors come to broaden their knowledge in an informal ambiance. Organisers and moderators hope to enhance understanding of science and confidence of people to participate in debates.