Engaging the Public at a Science Festival

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.

Keywords

public engagement public understanding of science controversial science gene editing science festivals science outreach

Introduction

Science is changing rapidly and increasing in complexity. As scientific issues such as synthetic biology, nanotechnology, genetically engineered organisms, and vaccinations have risen to the forefront of public debates, science is becoming more politicized and controversial with widespread societal implications (Scheufele, 2014). With these changes, the importance of engaging the public with science is greatly increasing (Lupia, 2013). As the implications of these controversial scientific issues are widespread, they require engagement with multiple stakeholders and audiences, including the lay public they will largely affect, to ensure that multiple views contribute to the policy-making process. The extent to which different types of engagement mechanisms for controversial scientific issues are successful in real-world settings remains an empirical question.

Using the 2015 Wisconsin Science Festival (WSF) as a case study, this article investigates questions that are extremely salient to science festivals and their success: evaluations of attending audiences and the effects of engagement activities on audiences’ perceptions of controversial science topics. That is, what are the types of audiences reached through science engagement events, and what outcomes should be expected, based on theoretical insights from science communication research and public engagement literature? First, we explore the WSF audience by comparing attendees to residents of the state of Wisconsin, located in the United States. Second, we hypothesize and test the effects of a panel discussion taking place at the WSF. The panel focused on a nascent controversial scientific issue, human gene editing—a process that allows scientists to change DNA directly by adding, replacing, or removing parts of the DNA. The panel, which covered both the technological aspects and societal implications of human gene editing, involved bench scientists, communication researchers, and 125 attendees. While involvement in a public engagement with science activity should ideally impact all participants (expert and lay), here we focus on the outcomes for members of the lay audience. Examining the impacts of public engagement events on expert participants, however, is important and should be the subject of future research.

Unlike much of the literature focusing on science festivals, we do not approach our research from the lens of informal science education. Rather, we seek to understand this science festival event from a science communication perspective to test the impacts of a specific event. In this study, we empirically demonstrate that a public engagement with science event can have meaningful impacts on participants’ knowledge and on their risk and benefit perceptions related to a controversial, morally-charged technology, therefore increasing their understanding of the complexity of the issue and decreasing polarization due to moral concerns. Researching the impacts of this type of communication technique in a real-world setting can contribute to a better understanding of the effectiveness of the public engagement with science model for nascent controversial scientific issues. Lastly, we show that evaluation mechanisms are essential for data-driven decision-making about the future of science festivals and their role in public engagement with science.

Public Engagement Research

To better understand the broader context of public engagement activities, we first briefly summarize the history and conceptualization of public engagement with science. As stressed by Brossard and Lewenstein (2010), theoretical approaches to public understanding of science and science communication have historically fit within four distinct models: the knowledge deficit model, the contextual model, the lay expertise model, and the public engagement model. Real-world settings of public engagement activities are murkier, and increasing knowledge among attendees about a controversial and complicated scientific issue is often a necessity for subsequent meaningful engagement (Brossard & Lewenstein, 2010). Unlike the deficit model approach and more traditional science outreach activities, rather than solely working to increase knowledge or promote one-way forms of communication, events that fall into the public engagement model involve members of the public in two-way forms of communication with experts and often include a decision-making component (Brossard & Lewenstein, 2010; Einsiedel & Eastlick, 2000; Wachelder, 2003). A wide variety of outreach events fall into this category, including consensus conferences, citizen juries, deliberative exercises, and science shops (Brossard & Lewenstein, 2010; Wachelder, 2003).

While more traditionally envisioned public engagement events are often oriented toward the democratization of science where members of the public obtain “control” over science via political engagement or outcomes, events that seek public involvement and emphasize dialogue are also considered public engagement (Anderson, Brossard, Scheufele, & Xenos, 2012; Brossard & Lewenstein, 2010). Although sometimes lacking a direct decision-making outcome, participation in these dialogue-based activities provides a space for scientific issue meaning construction and for exchange between actors who may later influence policy (Anderson et al., 2012). Not only can public engagement events have policy-side implications (e.g., Burgess, 2014; Einsiedel, Jelsøe, & Breck, 2001; Joss, 1998), but the impacts of such events can also spread to the larger communities through participants. Research specific to decision-driven engagement has suggested that participation positively influences knowledge, scientific literacy, and attitudes (e.g., Besley, Kramer, Yao, & Toumey, 2008; Chen & Deng, 2007; Einsiedel, 2002), with far-reaching impacts as participants continue to engage in informal discussion about the scientific topic with others (e.g., Besley et al., 2008; Petts, 2007). While it appears that public engagement with science events have the potential to influence and meaningfully engage members of the public, more methodical research, especially focused on dialogue-based engagement, is needed. Particularly, it remains to be empirically tested if such public engagement events can increase basic knowledge about a controversial topic, while communicating its complexity, therefore reducing the potential polarization traditionally linked to morally charged scientific issues (Scheufele, 2014).

Over recent years, researchers have investigated different aspects of science engagement events, while science communicators have applied the public engagement with science model across various outlets and topics. For instance, science museums, centers, festivals, and other avenues of informal science education have integrated elements of the public engagement with science approach into their own work (Bell, 2008). The American Association for the Advancement of Science—the world’s largest general science society—frequently calls on scientists and science communicators to perform additional public engagement activities (Leshner, 2003). Before discussing science festivals, we first delve into the current research on public engagement event evaluations.

Evaluation of Public Engagement Activities

The current research on public engagement with science events touches on many aspects. A review of the literature on event outcomes, which primarily focuses on changes in knowledge and attitudes among participants, shows that research in that area is, however, sparse. Indeed, while deliberative public engagement events have proliferated, systematic evaluative efforts focused on participant outcomes lag behind (see Longstaff & Secko, 2016). Studies investigating changes in science-related attitudes and understanding associated with participation in deliberative events (e.g., consensus conferences) have suggested positive relationships (e.g., Jones et al., 2014). However, such efforts are often based on participant self-reports after the event or inferred based on event-generated reports or recommendations (e.g., Besley et al., 2008; Chen & Deng, 2007).

Specific to science festivals, limited peer-reviewed research has addressed or evaluated public engagement efforts occurring at these events. Recent science festival studies have explored event designs (e.g., Blonder & Rap, 2013; Fogg-Rogers, Bay, Burgess, & Purdy, 2015) or focused on “science as culture” in attendees’ expectations and experiences (Sardo & Grand, 2016). Within the context of a public engagement event similar to the human gene editing panel evaluated here, Bird, Murphy, Bake, Albayrak, and Mercer (2013) investigated a single-panel workshop on food addiction. Designed as a two-way conversation about food addiction between psychologists, scientists, and the panel audience, the vast majority of attendees reported learning from the event (90%) and thought it was relevant to their lives (80%; Bird et al., 2013). However, the survey relied on self-reported measures, lacked a strong pre- and post-test methodology, and failed to address important aspects, such as risk perceptions surrounding food addiction.

As a close analogue to science festivals, science cafés are an increasingly common form of public engagement with science. Here, interested members of the public attend a small gathering with scientists and stakeholders (for an overview, see Nielsen, Balling, Hope, & Nakamura, 2015). However, as the specific goals of science cafés are seldom clearly stated, effect studies are rare. Studying a science café in the Netherlands by comparing attitudes toward nanotechnology held by those who attended the event and those who are interested in science but did not attend, Dijkstra and Critchley (2016) found that, overall, the café attendees had more positive attitudes toward nanotechnology, but the two groups held many similar key attitudes. As the study did not have a pre-post survey design, the authors were unable to test if attending a science café had an effect on individuals. Lastly, Jones et al. (2014) investigated the outcomes of a deliberative exercise on nanotechnology, where participants engaged in debate regarding nanotechnology-related issues, such as funding for projects and the risks and benefits of the technology. The authors found that participants valued the learning experience and gained knowledge from the event, as well as confidence in that knowledge (Jones et al., 2014).

In sum, despite the increasing prevalence of public engagement events for science-related issues, the current research on public engagement event evaluation lags behind. The specific goals of these exercises are often unclear, and the impacts of such events on participants’ knowledge and attitudes (particularly risk and benefit perceptions and moral considerations related to controversial science) have not yet clearly been established. Notably, specific public engagement with science events are seldom situated in the broader context in which they take place, hindering the ability to conclude on their impacts. Indeed, the potential impacts of a specific engagement activity are highly dependent on the context in which it occurs, including the audience (potential and actual), as well as the stated goals of the event. Figure 1 summarizes these different levels of analysis using the human gene editing event investigated in this study as an illustration.

Figure 1.

Evaluation Framework for Public Engagement with Science, using the human gene editing panel at the Wisconsin Science Festival as an illustration.

Sciences Festivals and Their Audiences

Compared to other types of public engagement with science events, science festivals are new. While gatherings similar to science festivals, such as public lectures or discussions, have existed in Britain since 1831 (Gregory & Miller, 1998), the modern conceptualization of a science festival first emerged in Edinburgh, Scotland, in 1989 and quickly propagated (von Roten, 2011). Broadly construed, science festivals consist of a cluster of events that occur over a series of one day to an entire month in the same geographic location, potentially with an overarching theme (Enserink, 2004). Events can be an assortment of sizes and are typically designed to appeal to a variety of audiences by combining science with fun and entertainment, including lectures, discussion panels, informational booths, and interactive displays. Oftentimes, science festivals aim to foster positive attitudes toward science, educate participants, and build relationships between science institutions and the community (www.sciencefestivals.org).

To better understand science festivals and their potential outcomes, it is important to understand who attends these events. Numerous scholars have discussed the concept of a general or lay public and its involvement in informal science education and communication (Gregory & Miller, 1998). However, a homogeneous public does not exist; rather, what comprises “the public” is a complex web of groups with differing backgrounds, cultural experiences, political ideologies, religious beliefs, and types and levels of knowledge (see Scheufele, 2013 for a discussion). Each group and individual holds different beliefs about the role of science in their lives and requires different methods of learning, understanding, and engaging with science. As such, public engagement activity organizers must approach each group differently to achieve a specific goal. Without appropriate knowledge of the attending audiences, organizers are in “danger of aiming at everybody and reaching nobody” (Felt, 2003, p. 39).

Based on an examination of prior research, the audiences of festivals are understudied, particularly those in regional or local settings and in the United States. In 2012, the Science Festival Alliance (SFA) reported 30 festivals located in the United States, producing more than 2,600 events (Manning, Lin, & Goodman, 2013). The SFA’s summative report analyzed audiences at the festivals in only four locations, the Bay Area, Cambridge, Philadelphia, and San Diego, determining that the attending audiences were not broadly representative of the United States or local populations, but rather a distinctive and repeating subset. For example, two thirds of the respondents were White and about half worked or studied in a STEM field (Manning et al., 2013). Additionally, many audience members already held positive views toward science, with 44% reporting they attended the festival because of a general interest in science.

In line with these findings from the SFA, empirical research outside of the United States has found that the majority of festival attendees express sentiments of curiosity or great interest in gaining knowledge about science (e.g., Fogg-Rogers et al., 2015; von Roten, 2011). Additional research has found that the most “successful” science events (i.e., reaching and impacting audiences beyond those inherently interested in science or the particular topic of interest) target a subpopulation, or one “public” instead of a wide range of “publics,” that may not be inherently interested in science (Weitkamp, 2015). However, without a target population or any baseline data on who attends the festival, setting and achieving goals can be problematic for festival organizers (Bultitude, 2014).

Wisconsin Science Festival

Beginning in 2011, the WSF is organized by public and private institutions housed on the University of Wisconsin-Madison (UW-Madison) campus. While most events take place on campus, the multiday festival has recently expanded to additional locations throughout the state through collaboration with other organizations (WSF, 2015). The 2015 WSF was held from October 22 to 25 with over 10,000 individuals attending on campus alone. The evening of Friday, October 23, focused on attracting adults, featuring science events involving food and alcoholic beverages (e.g., “The Science of the Manhattan”). Saturday, October 24, and Sunday, October 25, featured kid-friendly events, such as hands-on experiments and booths (e.g., medical students displayed brains and livers for attendees to examine and touch). Both days included keynotes speeches and panels on timely scientific topics and their societal implications. Notably, a panel on human gene editing titled “Designer Genes: Should We Be Able to Edit Our Genomes?” was organized for the first day.

Human Gene Editing Panel as a Case Study

Human gene editing is a highly complex scientific topic with widespread and potentially controversial societal implications (Jasanoff, Benjamin Hurlbut, & Saha, 2015). Gene editing involves using artificial nucleases to insert, replace, or remove DNA from a genome. New gene editing tools, such as CRISPR-Cas9, enable the changes to be made with high precision and low cost. As such, gene editing technologies have the potential to advance science and health treatments, but they also present intricately complex challenges as issues of inequity and far-reaching consequences arise. Specifically, these technologies could edit genes so that any genetic changes are passed onto future generations, and subsequently alter the human germline.

Although the Human Genome Project was completed in 2001, the emergence of efficient gene editing tools, such as CRISPR-Cas9, has raised new concerns about the potential of human gene editing. As an nascent and controversial technology, research has just begun to explore public perceptions of the technology, finding that although most people are unfamiliar with human gene editing, high levels of concern and beliefs that it will cause inequities exist, which are exacerbated by religious views (Pew Research Center, 2016; STAT & Havard T. H. Chan School of Public Health, 2016). In line with the findings of Brossard and Lewenstein (2010), which highlight the need of basic knowledge for meaningful engagement, the event at the WSF was designed with two goals in mind. First, the panel aimed at increasing participants’ basic knowledge about human gene editing. Second, the goal was to increase both risk and benefit perceptions related to the controversial technology, therefore increasing participants’ understandings of the complexity of the issue while potentially avoiding polarization based on solely moral concerns. As previously mentioned, although public engagement with science events ideally affect all participants (lay and expert) by involving them in meaningful discourse concerning a science issue, here we focus only on the outcomes for lay audience members. The impacts of the WSF human gene editing panel on lay audience participants’ knowledge and perceptions were tested by designing an experiment to measure variables that are related to overall attitudes and support for a scientific or technological issue. First, in line with the framework proposed in Figure 1, we examine the broader context of the public engagement activity.

The WSF Audience

In order to understand the WSF attendees, we compared them to Wisconsin residents using data from two surveys. The first survey (hereafter the WSF survey) was conducted at the 2015 WSF and the second survey (hereafter the WI survey) was conducted six months prior in the state of Wisconsin.¹

WI Survey

The WI survey was a state-representative mailed survey, addressed to randomly selected Wisconsin residents. The survey, administered from April 5 to July 7, 2015, by the UW Survey Center (UWSC), took place in four waves, in accordance with the Dillman method (Dillman, Smyth, & Christian, 2014). The first wave included 2,000 Wisconsin residents and consisted of the survey and a cover letter explaining its significance, along with a $2 incentive and paid return envelope. Five days later, the UWSC mailed a postcard reminder followed by a second survey packet three weeks later. Finally, the last survey packet was mailed another month later. The survey gathered 948 responses and had a 50.3% response rate, after correcting for undeliverables.

WSF Survey

The WSF survey followed a random intercept design. Graduate students and festival organizers served as trained surveyors. Before the event, the surveyors were provided with a survey protocol and coached through the procedure as a training exercise. The survey was administered in Qualtrics using iPads. From 10 a.m. to 3 p.m. on Saturday, October 24, and Sunday, October 25, seven surveyors were assigned sections of the building housing the WSF and given specific instructions for random sampling. The sections accounted for even spacing around the entrances and the area surrounding the main lecture hall, located in the middle of the building. Each surveyor was shown the boundaries of his or her section on a map. Looking at the imaginary borders of their sections, surveyors stopped every fifth group or person that passed through their area and asked one person above 18 years of age to participate in the short survey. The selection process and even positioning throughout the building were designed to randomize who responded to the survey. While intercept surveys can potentially be highly biased, our randomization procedure enabled the surveyors to obtain a more accurate representation of the festival audience. Compared to the methods used at other festivals, which often involve attendees self-selecting to fill out forms for a comment box (Fogg-Rogers et al., 2015), our methods allowed for a more representative sample. Of the 231 people asked to participate, 183 completed the survey for a response rate of 79.2%.

Comparison: WI Resident and WSF Attendees

To allow comparisons across the two datasets, both surveys included questions with exact or near-exact wording on the same scales. (See footnotes for wording and descriptions of variables). Analyses of variance were run to compare the response means from WSF attendees and WI residents for age,² gender,³ education,⁴ political ideology,⁵ deference to science,⁶ media attention,⁷ and trust.⁸ Many of these variables impact perceptions of science, especially controversial or emerging science and technology, and can influence attitudes or overall support for science and its funding (e.g., Kim, Yeo, Brossard, Scheufele, & Xenos, 2014; Scheufele, 2006).

Overall, WSF attendees and WI residents were considerably different (Table 1). Age, gender, education, political ideology, deference to science, attention to media about national government and politics, and trust in university scientists, corporations, and religious organizations all varied significantly between the two groups.

Table 1.

ANOVA Results for the Evaluation of WSF Audiences, Comparing WSF Attendees (N = 183) and WI Residents (N = 948).

	WSF		WI		F
	M	SD	M	SD	F
Age, years	42.81	11.76	56.39	16.49	96.77**
Gender^a	0.52	0.50	0.64	0.48	8.77*
College degree^a	0.91	0.29	0.40	0.49	182.30**
Political ideology^a	2.07	0.89	3.07	1.01	147.96**
Deference to science	3.53	0.79	3.00	0.94	51.89**
Media attention (government/politics)	3.72	1.01	3.18	1.09	38.137**
Trust in university scientists	4.40	0.77	3.58	1.00	109.82**
Trust in corporations	2.02	0.88	2.38	0.84	25.94**
Trust in religious organizations	1.70	0.97	2.57	1.10	99.39**
Trust in regulatory agencies	3.32	1.01	3.17	0.98	3.66

Note. ANOVA = analysis of variance; WSF = Wisconsin Science Festival; WI = Wisconsin.

Female, degree, and conservative coded high.

p < .01. **p < .001.

First looking at the demographics, WSF attendees (Mdn = 41 years) were significantly younger than WI residents (Mdn = 57 years). Gender differed across the two groups, with females making up 52% of the WSF respondents and 64% of the WI resident respondents. Statistically more WSF attendees held college degrees (91%) compared to the WI residents (40%). The festival attendees were more liberal than the state sample and more deferent to scientific authority (Table 1). Festival attendees also paid more attention to national government and politics news than their WI resident counterparts. Lastly, there were differences between the groups’ levels of trust for three of the four institutions. Compared to the WI respondents, festival attendees were more trusting of university scientists and less trusting of corporations and religious organizations. There was no difference for trust in regulatory agencies. In line with our Framework for Evaluation (Figure 1), our next step focuses on the analysis of the impacts of the human gene editing panel.

Impacts of the Human Gene Editing Panel Discussion

As explained earlier, the 2015 WSF featured a panel on human gene editing titled “Designer Genes: Should We Be Able to Edit Our Genomes?” that took place from 1:15 p.m. to 2:45 p.m. on Saturday, October 24, 2015, in the main public meeting room of the WSF hosting building. One hundred and twenty-five WSF attendees were present. According to the advertised description, the panel was designed to bring together bench scientists, social scientists, and ethicists to discuss the “tremendous opportunities and ethical challenges” of genome editing technologies, such as CRISPR-Cas9. Overall, the goal of the human gene editing panel was to improve lay audience participants’ basic understanding of the technology and, more importantly, its potential societal impacts, positive and negative. Specifically, the purpose was to increase both risks and benefits perceptions related to the controversial technology, therefore increasing participants’ understanding of the complexity of the issue and potentially avoiding polarization based solely on moral concerns. Additionally, although our primary focus is on lay audience participants, the panel aimed to bridge connections between all participants, both expert and audience, and encourage learning from both sides by engaging participants in discussion about aspects of the technology that were important to them.

The five panelists (four participants and a moderator) were all university faculty members: two bench scientists (a chemical engineer and genetics researcher), a bioethicist (scheduled to participate, but was unable to attend), and two communications expert, specifically in the area of controversial science (one served as the moderator). The panel was half female, half male. At traditional academic panels, the panel participants each give presentations, followed by a short question-and-answer session. However, as a public engagement activity, the human gene editing panel deviated from this setup by devoting an hour (roughly two thirds of the event) to discussions with the audience. Sixteen individuals engaged with the panel during the discussion period. By providing more time and opportunities for two-way communication and discussion, this format encouraged the audience to engage with the topic. During the discussion section, the entire audience was able to participate in the exchange between the audience member speaking and the panelists, similar to the expert interrogation that occurs during consensus conferences. Although the panel did not have a direct decision-making component, as participants processed the information they gained during the panel, their perceptions of human gene editing may have shifted. Additionally, the panel provided an opportunity for meaning construction, exchange between actors with the potential to later influence policy (e.g., Anderson et al., 2012), and wider reaching impacts through the interpersonal spread of information (e.g., Besley et al., 2008). As outreach shifts from the “public understanding of science” model to the “public engagement with science” model, outcomes can change as well (Brossard & Lewenstein, 2010).

Knowledge

Knowledge plays a widely studied and complicated role in public engagement with science. As noted previously, in the earlier days of the “public understanding of science” movement, knowledge was thought to be the primary factor in predicting understanding, engagement, and support for science (Brossard & Lewenstein, 2010). Indeed, many public understanding of science events are based on a one-way flow of information from expert to lay audience as prescribed by the knowledge deficit model—the concept that supplying individuals with more information about science will correspondingly result in greater support for science (Brossard & Lewenstein, 2010; Irwin & Wynne, 2003). The public engagement with science model has emerged from this conceptualization to acknowledge the importance of conversation with lay members of the public and of additional determinants of support for science. That is, as social sciences evidence has demonstrated, the knowledge deficit model falls short in explaining attitudes toward science. Other factors, including value sets, cultural histories, predispositions, and perceptions, have emerged as better predictors of support for science compared to knowledge, and as shaping individuals’ perceptions of science (for a review, see Eveland & Cooper, 2013; National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 2016).

In spite of the large influence of other predictors on support for science, knowledge can have an effect. However, this relationship is further complicated as the impact of knowledge on attitudes and support for science is dependent on the type of knowledge considered (e.g., Johnson, 1993; Knight, 2005; Ladwig, Dalrymple, Brossard, Scheufele, & Corley, 2012; Su, Cacciatore, Scheufele, Brossard, & Xenos, 2014). Two common conceptualizations of knowledge are factual and perceived. Factual knowledge is often measured by a battery of true or false questions about a concept and represents the amount of factual knowledge an individual has about that concept, while perceived knowledge is measured by a self-reported level of familiarity or information and represents a self-assessed level of knowledge (Ladwig et al., 2012). While both measures of knowledge have flaws, one relevant limitation is that factual knowledge is often based on what experts determine to be relevant, meaning the measure may not reflect actual public knowledge or understanding of the issue (Bauer, Petkova, & Boyadjieva, 2000; Brossard & Shanahan, 2006; Johnson, 1993).

Overall, a complex relationship between science knowledge and attitudes toward science exists, which varies across issues, measures, and in response to other values and predispositions (Allum, Sturgis, Tabourazi, & Brunton-Smith, 2008; Brossard & Lewenstein, 2010; Brossard, Scheufele, Kim, & Lewenstein, 2009; Ho, Brossard, & Scheufele, 2008; Scheufele & Lewenstein, 2005). Nevertheless, knowledge can be an important measure of individual comfort or familiarity with an issue and does play a role in science communication and education. Often, knowledge can serve as an equalizer (Brossard & Lewenstein, 2010). That is, providing information can ensure that communities of varying knowledge levels all have the same information, or provide a common ground for different groups (Brossard & Lewenstein, 2010).

As previously mentioned, prior research on public engagement events has demonstrated positive impacts on learning or knowledge, however measured, associated with participation. Specific to science festivals, data gathered by the SFA found festivals can increase learning, especially when attendees interacted with a STEM professional (Manning et al., 2013). With this in mind, we explore if the WSF human gene editing panel increased attendees’ perceived knowledge levels, as this can indicate an increased familiarity or fluency with the topic based on participants’ self-assessments. Based on previous findings, the panelists’ presentations of gene editing information related to their own research, and the discussion about a wide range of potential societal implications of the technology, it is likely participants felt they learned about the issue.

Hypothesis 1: Participating in the WSF human gene editing panel will increase attendees’ perceived knowledge of the technology.

Risk and Benefit Perceptions

The value-laden aspects of an issue, including uncertainty and dread, contribute to perceptions of risk (Covello, 1998; Slovic, 1987). When an issue is viewed as risky, such as with controversial scientific topics, it can greatly influence how the issue is perceived, accepted, or understood. Generally, those who perceive an emerging technology as risky are less accepting (e.g., Costa-Font, Gil, & Traill, 2008; Currall, King, Lane, Madera, & Turner, 2006). Additionally, research has demonstrated that risk perceptions can complicate the path from knowledge to support for science. For example, individuals’ risk perceptions regarding nanotechnology in the United States are influenced by systematic processing—the slower intake and evaluation of data—rather than quick heuristic cues (Kim et al., 2014). Alternatively, knowledge levels can also affect perceptions of risk for emerging technologies (e.g., Scheufele & Lewenstein, 2005; Zhu & Xie, 2015).

When evaluating emerging technologies and controversial scientific issues, risk and benefit perceptions are frequently considered directly related concepts or two ends of the same scale. Risk research, especially concerning controversial science, suggests that a more nuanced approach is needed (Binder, Cacciatore, Scheufele, Shaw, & Corley, 2012). While the affect heuristic described by Finucane, Alhakami, Slovic, and Johnson (2000) proposes an inverse relationship between perceptions of risks and benefits, this does not always occur. Rather, more knowledge about a scientific topic may increase or decrease both risk and benefit perceptions simultaneously, highlighting their complex relationship. Indeed, Wallquist, Visschers, and Siegrist (2010) found that higher knowledge levels increased ambivalence toward climate change mitigation technology as individuals saw more risks and benefits. The increased ambivalence may be a response to additional information that uncovers the benefits that a new technology or science can offer, while also revealing the many risks it poses for society (Yeo et al., 2013).

Specific to involvement in discursive activities, past research suggests that participation can influence risk and benefit perceptions, although the studies often base these conclusions on indirect evidence. For instance, examining the reports produced by consensus conferences, Purdue (1999) and Pidgeon and Rogers-Hayden (2007) found, respectively, that participants were ambiguous about the risks and benefits of the technology and that risk perceptions increased. Based on this past research, we hypothesize the human gene editing panel will increase attendees’ risk perceptions of the technology, while also influencing perceptions of the benefits. We propose the following two hypotheses:

Hypothesis 2: Participating in the WSF human gene editing panel will increase attendees’ risk perceptions of the technology.

Hypothesis 3: Participating in the WSF human gene editing panel will increase attendees’ benefit perceptions of the technology.

Morality and Ethics

Individuals’ perceptions of scientific issues are also affected by their ethical or moral views. What an individual finds morally acceptable can be shaped by their religiosity or perceptions of the risks and benefits of a certain technology (Scheufele, Corley, Shih, Dalrymple, & Ho, 2009). For instance, previous research has found that religious views influence support for stem cell research in the United States (Ho et al., 2008) and public perceptions of gene editing (Pew Research Center, 2016; STAT-Havard, 2016). Likewise, moral and ethical aspects may be considered when weighing the acceptability of emerging technologies, such as genetically modified foods (Costa-Font et al., 2008) or synthetic biology (BBSRC, 2010; Hart Research Associates, 2013). In order to determine how the human gene editing panel will affect moral and ethical considerations associated with the technology, we offer the following research question:

Research Question 1: How will attending the WSF human gene editing panel impact attendees’ moral and ethical views of the technology?

Method

To examine the impacts of the panel on audience members’ perceptions of human gene editing, we used data collected from a pre- and post-test survey of the attendees.⁹ The surveyors were trained graduate research assistants who received the surveying protocol before the event. On the day of the event, the survey team reviewed the protocol and familiarized themselves with the survey. In total, there were eight trained researchers, who were distributed evenly by the entrances to the panel room. A randomization process was used to select participants: once the room was opened, each researcher surveyed the fifth person to pass as they entered, including those who arrived late. To increase our response rate and avoid only receiving responses from individuals interested in expressing their views on gene editing, each intercepted person was offered a $2 incentive. Only those over the age of 18 were surveyed, and responses were recorded online in Qualtrics via iPads. For the post-survey, the same protocol was followed, beginning with the attendees who left early, although not long before the end of the discussion period (we counted two attendees who left early, surveying began with the third person to leave). The pre-test survey gathered 34 responses (94.1% response rate), while the post-survey gathered 26 (100% response rate). In the post-survey, eight participants reported also taking the survey when they first arrived at the panel.

Analysis and Measures

The pre- and post-test surveys asked identical questions on a 5-point scale, including questions about knowledge, risks, benefits, and ethics. The surveys also asked demographic information, such as college degree, age, and gender. Analyses of variance were run for comparisons. Of note, due to the small samples sizes, an alpha value of .1 was utilized as the cutoff to test for significance (Agresti & Finlay, 2009). “Don’t know” responses were removed from the analyses.

Demographics

Age was measured as a continuous variable by asking respondents “How old are you?” Gender and education were measured as dichotomous variables by asking respondents, respectively, “What is your gender?” (0 = male, 1 = female) and “Do you hold a college degree?” (0 = no, 1 = yes).

Knowledge

Perceived knowledge was measured on a 5-point scale (1 = not at all knowledgeable to 5 = very knowledgeable, plus don’t know) by asking respondents “How knowledgeable would you say you are about genetic editing?”

Risk Perceptions

To measure risk perceptions, respondents were asked, “How risky do you think genetic editing is for society as a whole?” on a 5-point scale (1 = not at all risky to 5 = very risky, plus don’t know).

Benefit Perceptions

Separate from risk perceptions, benefit perceptions were measured on a 5-point scale (1 = not at all beneficial to 5 = very beneficial, plus don’t know) by asking respondents, “How beneficial do you think genetic editing is for society as a whole?”

Ethics

Three questions were used to measure the ethics and morality of gene editing. First, concern about ethics was measured by asking respondents, “How concerned, if at all, are you about any ethical considerations of genetic editing?” using a 5-point scale (1 = not at all concerned to 5 = very concerned, plus don’t know). Next, to measure moral acceptability and human progress, respondents were asked how much they agreed or disagreed with two statements: (a) “Genetic editing is morally acceptable” and (b) “Genetic editing will help human kind progress” (5-point scale; 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree, plus don’t know).

Results

First, we checked for differences between those surveyed before and after the panel with respect to age, gender, and education level. As there were no statistically significant differences, we compared the two random samples obtained before and after the panel, despite the small samples sizes.

Turning to the panel impacts on attendees’ knowledge, risk and benefit perceptions, and morality and ethics views, the results of the comparisons can be found in Table 2. In support of Hypothesis 1, the panel increased the lay panel participants’ perceived knowledge of human gene editing. When asked about learning, 69% of participants reported they learned “some” or “a lot” about gene editing from the panel.

Table 2.

ANOVA Results for the Human Gene Editing Panel Impact, Comparing Pre-test (N = 34) and Post-test (N = 26) Responses.

	Pre		Post		F
	M	SD	M	SD	F
Knowledge	2.69	1.18	3.31	1.01	4.52**
Risk to society	3.28	0.96	3.76	0.97	3.47*
Benefit to society	3.81	0.82	4.23	0.77	3.96*
Concerned about ethics	3.84	0.85	3.68	1.11	0.40
Morally acceptable	3.38	1.00	4.00	0.71	6.93**
Human progress	3.78	0.94	4.04	0.84	1.16

Note. ANOVA = analysis of variance.

p < .1. **p < .05.

The panel also influenced both risk and benefit perceptions. The average levels of perceived risks and benefits were significantly higher in the post-test compared to the pre-test. Supporting Hypotheses 2 and 3, the panel increased attendees’ perceptions of both the risks and benefits of the technology. Of note, risk and benefit perceptions were not significantly correlated either before or after the panel (pre: Pearson’s r = −.1, p = .77; post: Pearson’s r = .2, p = .46).

Addressing Research Question 1, we examined the effect on attendees’ views concerning the morality and ethics of gene editing technologies. For two of the ethics measures, there was not a significant difference between the surveys. That is, there was no significant impact of the panel on the level of concern for the ethical consideration of gene editing or on the belief that gene editing will help human kind progress. However, the panel did significantly affect the belief that gene editing is morally acceptable, with attendees’ viewing gene editing as more morally acceptable following the panel. Overall, there was a significant increase in perceived knowledge levels, risk perceptions, benefit perceptions, and moral acceptability.

Discussion

In line with the stated goals of the human gene editing panel, we found that a public engagement with science event on a controversial, morally-loaded scientific issue did have a significant impact on participants. After the panel, participants felt they had more knowledge about human gene editing, saw more risks and more benefits from the technology, and viewed gene editing as more morally acceptable. Consistent with the burgeoning movement away from a direct policy or decision-making outcome for public engagement events, the human gene editing panel instead focused on outcomes associated with the discursive nature of the activity, such as encouraging a broader understanding of the technology and its societal implications for all participants, expert and public. We have also proposed an Evaluation Framework for Public Engagement with Science (Figure 1). From this framework, we can see the importance of placing public engagement events in their broader social and engagement contexts. Absent of these contexts, it is difficult to accurately evaluate the success of public engagement with science events or to establish them as manifestations of the public engagement with science model.

Before discussing our finding in greater detail, some limitations are considered. Those who attended the human gene editing panel may have already been interested or knowledgeable about this technology, possibly skewing the results of the study. The experimental pre- and post-survey method controlled for this by allowing us to test for changes rather than relying on self-reports after the panel. However, potential issues with the independent sample pre- and post-test survey methodology exist. We were unable to completely control for external factors by surveying the same panel attendees before and after the panel. Instead, as the pre- and post-test survey respondents were different groups of people and the sample sizes were small, the differences we found could be due to the samples themselves rather than the intervention (i.e., the panel discussion). Likewise, it is also possible that those who left the panel discussion early represented a specific subgroup (e.g., less knowledgeable or more ethically concerned) who were underrepresented in the post-survey. This being said, the similar demographic distributions, the repeated participation of eight respondents (although we are unable to directly match their responses across the two surveys), the post-survey inclusion of those who left early, and the stringent randomization process (i.e., interviewing every fifth person) in place to control for potential problems linked to different samples all lend strength to our methodology and results. The study focused on the short-term impact of the panel on participants. Future studies could test the long-term impacts to assess if attitudes toward human gene editing persisted and if the panel encouraged them to pay more attention to the topic or seek additional information. Lastly, in comparing WSF attendees to Wisconsin residents, we were limited to using existing data and unable to test additional variables across the groups, such as an interest in science.

In spite of these limitations, this study has several important implications. Evaluation research is an ever-evolving process and establishing baseline data is the first step of many (Wall, 2014). The techniques and methodologies used here to gather data could be adapted and employed during other events, with the study variables providing a starting point for other researchers to build assessments of their own science event activities. Only by securing baseline data and checking if current goals are being met, can future work be improved to reach new audiences beyond those most commonly self-selected to attend science festivals. Additionally, survey methods that allow individuals to self-select into a study, such as feedback forms or comment boxes, may oversample those who felt they experienced extreme effect from engagement activities (Fogg-Rogers et al., 2015). By avoiding this type of bias, the randomization protocol employed for both the WSF and panel surveys provide a better measure of participation outcomes and circumvent a pitfall of numerous other studies. Furthermore, while it could be argued that only a self-selected group agreed to complete our survey—adding an extra layer of selectivity as these individuals were already interested enough to attend the WSF and panel—our high response rate in both the pre- and post-test shows this is not a large concern.

Second, while prior public engagement with science event research has examined the impacts of participation, many studies focus on deliberative events and lack a strong evaluation methodology. The data we collected lend themselves to practical recommendations for WSF organizers to improve the festival and reach new audiences. However, our findings have important theoretical implications applied to the broader concepts of public engagement with science.

In line with prior research on public engagement, attending the human gene editing panel increased perceived knowledge. While additional knowledge is not directly related to more positive views of science (e.g., support or moral acceptability), it does play a role in ensuring that different groups are working with the same baseline information (Brossard & Lewenstein, 2010). The perceived knowledge measure employed in the study may also indicate that participants gained familiarity or comfort with the topic of gene editing.

Based on the risk and benefit perceptions, the results are more nuanced. As suggested by recent research on perceptions of scientific topics, both benefit and risk perceptions significantly increased following the panel and the attainment of additional knowledge, signifying that ambivalence toward gene editing grew among the lay panel participants (Wallquist et al., 2010), a clear reflection of the complexity of the issue and the many aspects discussed during the panel. There was also a significant impact related to the moral aspects of gene editing, specifically increasing its moral acceptability. Interestingly, there was no effect on level of concern for the ethical aspects.

Turning to the findings on the risks-benefits relationship, public risk and benefit perceptions were not inversely related, as proposed by the affect heuristic (Finucane et al., 2000), and both increased after participating in the human gene editing panel. These findings highlight the capacity of individuals to consider both risks and benefits of a controversial technology separately (Binder et al., 2012; Yeo et al., 2013). Knowledge has a complex relationship with risk and benefit perceptions, a finding mirrored by this experiment. While attendees gained knowledge about potential risks of the human gene editing technology, such as ecological and genetic contamination, they also learned about its potential benefits, such as treating human disease and genetic disorders.

Lastly, we offer insight into the overall effectiveness of the public engagement with science model. Discussions surrounding public engagement with science laud its effectiveness but often lack data to support the claim (Stilgoe, Lock, & Wilsdon, 2014). The two-way form of communication and engagement is theorized to include the public in the decision-making process regarding science and its societal implications. The data gathered during the human gene editing panel experiment lend evidence to the effect the public engagement with science model can have on participants. To our knowledge, this is the first evidence that a science festival event following the public engagement with science model can significantly impact important variables, such as knowledge, risk and benefit perceptions, and moral thinking.

With an entire hour spent on a discussion session at the panel, it is well worth considering what topics were discussed and what type of engagement took place. Sixteen audience members engaged with the panelists on broad topics, ranging from the ecological effects of genome editing and animal welfare to disease therapy and the risks involved in human gene editing. Many expressed their open concern with the scientists on the panel, who in turn addressed their questions. While it is difficult to know what particular aspect of the panel led to the resulting impact, the discussions that took place were directly related to the variables measured in the pre- and post-tests. Future work involving a more sophisticated content analysis of the panel and question-and-answer session may shed some light.

Conclusions

Many forms of public engagement with science struggle to have an impact. A national survey showed that only 7.1% of Americans said they watched an episode of the Cosmos reboot and that only 2.4% said they watched all 13 episodes (Akin et al., 2016). While the program aimed to invigorate the country’s interest in science by remaking the 1980 science documentary series, data showed it was unsuccessful. Moving forward, science festivals offer a unique opportunity for science educators and communicators. Unlike other events, science festivals expose individuals to numerous scientific topics with just one visit (Durant, 2013). This provides science festivals with opportunities for broad public engagement concerning multiple scientific topics (von Roten, 2011). Most importantly, a science festival is interactive in ways that other public engagement events are not, allowing children to interact with STEM professionals and adults to ask questions directly to scientists.

The findings gleamed from these data provide insights for future of public engagement with science events. They show how this form of public engagement with science—a science festival panel—can have an effect on the audiences attending. As demonstrated by the changes in participant knowledge, risk and benefit perception, and moral acceptability, such events can have broad societal impacts. However, while the broader impacts of public engagement events are largely dependent on the context in which they take place (Figure 1), such activities can be used to further engage participants in considerations of the overlap among scientific issues, societal implications, and their own lives. By engaging in discussions about the potential societal implications of human gene editing, lay audience participants gained a broader understanding of the technology, which reflects the reality of including both risks and benefits.

Again, while lacking a direct decision-making outcome, panel participants may still potentially influence policy or others in their social networks through continued discussion (Besley et al., 2008). Likewise, the impacts of public engagement events may extend both ways. While this study focused on the impact of the panel on audience members, panel experts were also engaged in discussion and listened to aspects of the technology that were important to the attendees. Little research has investigated how interacting with a lay audience about a controversial scientific topic affects scientists’ perceptions of that audience, outreach as a whole, or even their own research and topic of discussion. Here, we can see the true potential of public engagement with science events, bridging connections and engaging in mutual learning.

In conclusion, this study provides empirical evidence to the notion that a public engagement activity for a nascent controversial scientific topic can have a significant effect on its audience. We obtained these results by utilizing sound methodologies that lacked biases inherent in other techniques. The practical and theoretical implications we provide can be used to strategically improve future science festivals and public engagement activities, and increase the body of theoretical work on public engagement with science through informal science education activities.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Notes

Author 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.

References

Agresti

Finlay

(2009). Statistical methods for the social sciences (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.

Akin

Hardy

Brossard

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

Sturgis

Tabourazi

Brunton-Smith

(2008). Science knowledge and attitudes across cultures: a meta-analysis. Public Understanding of Science, 17, 35-54. doi:10.1177/0963662506070159

Anderson

A. A.

Brossard

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

Carvalho

Doyle

(Eds.), Citizen voices: Performing public participation in science and environment communication (pp. 119-135). Chicago, IL: Intellect.

Bauer

M. W.

Petkova

Boyadjieva

(2000). Public knowledge of and attitudes to science: Alternative measures that may

end the “science war.”

Science, Technology & Human Values, 25, 30-51. doi:10.1177/016224390002500102

Bell

(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

Toumey

(2008). Interpersonal discussion following citizen engagement about nanotechnology: What, if anything, do they say? Science Communication, 30, 209-235. doi:10.1177/1075547008324670

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/

10.

Bird

S. P.

Murphy

Bake

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.

11.

Blonder

Rap

(2013). It’s a small world after all: A nanotechnology activity in a science festival. Journal of Nano Education, 4, 47-56. doi:10.1166/jne.2012.1029

12.

Brossard

Lewenstein

B. V.

(2010). A critical appraisal of models of public understanding of science: Using practice to inform theory. In Kahlor

Stout

(Eds.), Communicating science: New agendas in communication (pp. 11-39). New York, NY: Routledge.

13.

Brossard

Scheufele

D. A.

Kim

Lewenstein

B. V.

(2009). Religiosity as a perceptual filter: Examining processes of opinion formation about nanotechnology. Public Understanding of Science, 18, 546-558.

14.

Brossard

Shanahan

(2006). Do they know what they read? Building a scientific literacy measurement instrument based on science media coverage. Science Communication, 28, 47-63. doi:10.1177/1075547006291345

15.

Bultitude

(2014). Science festivals: Do they succeed in reaching beyond the “already engaged”? Journal of Science Communication, 13(4), 1-3.

16.

Burgess

M. M.

(2014). From “trust us” to participatory governance: Deliberative publics and science policy. Public Understanding of Science, 23, 48-52. doi:10.1177/0963662512472160

17.

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. doi:10.1007/s12280-007-9003-8

18.

Costa-Font

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. doi:10.1016/j.foodpol.2007.07.002

19.

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

20.

Currall

S. C.

King

E. B.

Lane

Madera

Turner

(2006). What drives public acceptance of nanotechnology? Nat Nano, 1, 153-155.

21.

Dijkstra

A. M.

Critchley

C. R.

(2016). Nanotechnology in Dutch science cafés: Public risk perceptions contextualised. Public Understanding of Science, 25, 71-87. doi:10.1177/0963662514528080

22.

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.

23.

Durant

(2013). The role of science festivals. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 110, 2681-2681.

24.

Einsiedel

E. F.

(2002). Assessing a controversial medical technology: Canadian public consultations on xenotransplantation. Public Understanding of Science, 11, 315-331. doi:10.1088/0963-6625/11/4/301

25.

Einsiedel

E. F.

Eastlick

D. L.

(2000). Consensus conferences as deliberative democracy: Aa communications perspective. Science Communication, 21(4), 323-343. doi:10.1177/1075547000021004001

26.

Einsiedel

E. F.

Jelsøe

Breck

(2001). Publics at the technology table: The consensus conference in Denmark, Canada, and Australia. Public Understanding of Science, 10, 83-98. doi:10.1088/0963-6625/10/1/306

27.

Enserink

(2004). Europe clones U.S. science festival. Science, 305(5689), 1387.

28.

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. doi:10.1073/pnas.1212742110

29.

Felt

(2003). Optimising public understanding of science and technology: Final report. Vienna, Austria: University of Vienna.

30.

Finucane

M. L.

Alhakami

Slovic

Johnson

S. M.

(2000). The affect heuristic in judgments of risks and benefits. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 13, 1-17.

31.

Fogg-Rogers

Bay

J. L.

Burgess

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.

32.

Gregory

Miller

(1998). Science in public. New York, NY: Perseus.

33.

Hart Research Associates. (2013). Awareness & impressions of synthetic biology: A report of findings based on a national survey among adults. Washington, DC: Author.

34.

S. S.

Brossard

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. doi:10.1093/ijpor/edn017

35.

Irwin

Wynne

(Eds.). (2003). Misunderstanding science? The public reconstruction of science and technology. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

36.

Jasanoff

Benjamin Hurlbut

Saha

(2015). CRISER democracy: Gene editing and the need for inclusive deliberation. Issues in Science & Technology, 32, 25-32.

37.

Johnson

B. B.

(1993). Advancing understanding of knowledge’s role in lay risk perception. Risk: Issues in Health & Safety, 4, 189-212.

38.

Jones

A. R.

Anderson

A. A.

Yeo

S. K.

Greenberg

A. E.

Brossard

Moore

J. W.

(2014). Using a deliberative exercise to foster public engagement in nanotechnology. Journal of Chemical Education, 91, 179-187. doi:10.1021/ed400517q

39.

Joss

(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. doi:10.1093/spp/25.1.2

40.

Kim

Yeo

S. K.

Brossard

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.

41.

Knight

A. J.

(2005). Differential effects of perceived and objective knowledge measures on perceptions of biotechnology. AgBioForum, 8, 221-227.

42.

Ladwig

Dalrymple

K. E.

Brossard

Scheufele

D. A.

Corley

E. A.

(2012). Perceived familiarity or factual knowledge? Comparing operationalizations of scientific understanding. Science and Public Policy, 39, 761-774. doi:10.1093/scipol/scs048

43.

Leshner

A. I.

(2003). Public engagement with science. Science, 299, 977-977.

44.

Longstaff

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. doi:10.1177/0963662514545014

45.

Lupia

(2013). Communicating science in politicized environments. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 110(Suppl. 3), 14048-14054. doi:10.1073/pnas.1212726110

46.

Manning

Lin

Goodman

I. F.

(2013). The Science Festival Alliance: Creating a sustainable national network of science festivals. Cambridge, MA: Goodman Research Group.

47.

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2016). Science literacy: Concepts, contexts, and consequences. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

48.

Nielsen

K. H.

Balling

Hope

Nakamura

(2015). Sipping science: The interpretative flexibility of science cafés in Denmark and Japan. East Asian Science, Technology and Society, 9, 1-21. doi:10.1215/18752160-2832109

49.

Petts

(2007). Learning about learning: Lessons from public engagement and deliberation on urban river restoration. Geographical Journal, 173, 300-311. doi:10.1111/j.1475-4959.2007.00254.x

50.

Pew Research Center. (2016). U.S. public wary of biomedical technologies to “enhance” human abilities. Washington, DC: Author.

51.

Pidgeon

Rogers-Hayden

(2007). Opening up nanotechnology dialogue with the publics: Risk communication or ‘upstream engagement’? Health, Risk & Society, 9, 191-210. doi:10.1080/13698570701306906

52.

Purdue

(1999). Experiments in the governance of biotechnology: A case study of the UK National Consensus Conference. New Genetics & Society, 18(1), 79.

53.

Sardo

A. M.

Grand

(2016). Science in culture: Audiences’ perspective on engaging with science at a summer festival. Science Communication, 38, 251-260. doi:10.1177/1075547016632537

54.

Scheufele

D. A.

(2006). Messages and heuristics: How audiences form attitudes about emerging technologies. In Turney

(Ed.), Engaging science: Thoughts, deeds, analysis and action (pp. 20-25): London, England: Wellcome Trust.

55.

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. doi:10.1073/pnas.1213275110

56.

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. doi:10.1073/pnas.1317516111

57.

Scheufele

D. A.

Corley

E. A.

Shih

T.-J.

Dalrymple

K. E.

S. S.

(2009). Religious beliefs and public attitudes toward nanotechnology in Europe and the United States. Nat Nano, 4, 91-94.

58.

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. doi:10.1007/s11051-005-7526-2

59.

Slovic

(1987). Perception of risk. Science, 236(4799), 280-285. doi:10.1126/science.3563507

60.

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

61.

Stilgoe

Lock

S. J.

Wilsdon

(2014). Why should we promote public engagement with science? Public Understanding of Science, 23, 4-15. doi:10.1177/0963662513518154

62.

L. Y.-F.

Cacciatore

M. A.

Scheufele

D. A.

Brossard

Xenos

M. A.

(2014). Inequalities in scientific understanding: Differentiating between factual and perceived knowledge gaps. Science Communication, 36, 352-378. doi:10.1177/1075547014529093

63.

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.

64.

Wachelder

(2003). Democratizing science: Various routes and visions of Dutch science shops. Science, Technology & Human Values, 28, 244-273.

65.

Wall

(2014). Program evaluation model: 9-step process. Retrieved from http://www.janetwall.net/attachments/File/9_Step_Evaluation_Model_Paper.pdf

66.

Wallquist

Visschers

V. H. M.

Siegrist

(2010). Impact of knowledge and misconceptions on benefit and risk perception of CCS. Environmental Science & Technology, 44, 6557-6562. doi:10.1021/es1005412

67.

Weitkamp

(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

68.

Wisconsin Science Festival. (2015). Wisconsin Science Festival at a glance. Retrieved from https://www.wisconsinsciencefest.org/about.wsf

69.

Yeo

S. K.

Cacciatore

M. A.

Brossard

Scheufele

D. A.

Runge

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. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2013.11.061

70.

Zhu

Xie

(2015). Effects of knowledge on attitude formation and change toward genetically modified foods. Risk Analysis, 35, 790-810. doi:10.1111/risa.12319