Public understanding of science and technology embedded in complex institutional settings

Abstract

We use a constructivist analysis to describe how citizens learn and integrate highly technical scientific information about a new technology (bioremediation) within the context of a risk-based relationship with a federal agency in their own backyards. We engaged members of the general public in a workshop process where they produced a consensus report that describes how bioremediation works, characterizes the scientific issues not yet addressed, and sets the problem within the context of institutional arrangements for the production of knowledge. On the basis of their social roles in their communities, they applied new knowledge to their own experiences and worked at ways to translate their understanding of the technology into information that could be used in their multiple roles as learners in the workshop, as well as citizens and family members outside the workshop.

Keywords

bioremediation consensus conference participatory decision-making social construction

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Anderson, I.E. and Jaeger, B. ( 1999) "Danish Participatory Models," Science and Public Policy 26(5): 332-40.

Beck, U. ( 1992) Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity. London: SAGE Publications.

Carnes, S.A. ( 1995) "The Plethora of Publics and their Participation in Policy Making: How Can they Participate?," in Proceedings of the 20th Annual Conference of the National Association of Environmental Professionals. Washington, DC: NAEP. URL: http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/product.biblio.jsp?query_id=3&page=0&osti_id=82418

Durant, J. , Evans, G. and Thomas, G. ( 1989) "The Public Understanding of Science," Nature 340: 11-14.

Feldman, D.L. and Hanahan, R.A. ( 1996) "Public Perceptions of a Radioactively Contaminated Site: Concerns, Remediation Preferences, and Desired Involvement," Environmental Health Perspectives 104(12): 1344-52.

Freudenburg, W.R. ( 1993) "Risk and Recreancy: Weber, the Division of Labor, and the Rationality of Risk Perceptions," Social Forces 71(4): 909-32.

Gregory, J. and Miller, S. ( 1998) Science in Public: Communication, Culture, and Credibility . New York: Plenum Press.

Kluver, L. ( 1995) "Consensus Conferences at the Danish Board of Technology ," in S. Joss and J. Durant (eds) Public Participation in Science: The Role of Consensus Conferences in Europe, pp. 41-9. London : Science Museum.

Miller, J. ( 1998) "The Measure of Scientific Literacy," Public Understanding of Science 7: 203-23.

10.

Miller, J. ( 2001) "Public Understanding of Science at the Crossroads," Public Understanding of Science 10: 115-21.

11.

Palmisano, A. and Hazen, T. ( 2003) "Bioremediation of Metals and Radionuclides: What it is and How it Works," 2nd edn. Paper LBNL-42595_2003. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. URL: http://repositories.cdlib.org/lbnl/LBNL-42595_2003

12.

Seifert, F. ( 2006) "Local Steps in an International Career: A Danish-style Consensus Conference in Austria," Public Understanding of Science 15: 73-88.

13.

Williams, B. , Brown, S. and Greenberg, M. ( 1999) "Determinants of Trust Perceptions among Residents Surrounding the Savannah River Nuclear Weapons Site," Environment and Behavior 31(3): 354-71.

14.

Withey, S. ( 1959) "Public Opinion about Science and Scientists," Public Opinion Quarterly 23: 382-8.

15.

Wynne, B. ( 1992) "Public Understanding of Science Research: New Horizons or Hall of Mirrors?," Public Understanding of Science 1(1): 37-43.

16.

Yearley, S. ( 2000) "What Does Science Mean in the ‘Public Understanding of Science’?," in M. Dierkes and C. von Grote (eds) Between Understanding and Trust: The Public, Science, and Technology, pp. 217-36. Amsterdam: Harwood.