Public engagement in biosciences and biotechnologies: Reflections on the role of sociology and STS

Case study and approach

We examine the development of a best practice framework for public engagement in science and technology: Science and Technology Engagement Pathways (STEP). STEP arose from the work of a public awareness and community engagement (PACE) program under the National Enabling Technologies Strategy (NETS), which ran from 2009 to 2013. The latter was set up and funded by the Australian government, within its innovation portfolio. STEP was co-designed by stakeholders and members of the public ⁴ in a range of workshops: separate stakeholder workshops with industry, government (including other relevant departments and agencies) and researchers (including social scientists, natural scientists and engagement practitioners); a public workshop involving 45 ‘innocent’ citizens (Irwin, 2001); and a multi-stakeholder forum (including publics) from which the STEP framework was developed (later refined through online discussion). The framework was implemented and tested in a series of engagement forums, called ‘STEP into the Future’, held in different locations around the country (focused on different topics, e.g. synthetic biology, nanotechnology). The NETS program ended in 2013 and neither NETS nor STEP was re-funded. ⁵

We present a reflexive sociological study of STEP by two people involved in the process. Russell managed STEP’s development while employed as a public servant under NETS. She was responsible for the design and organisation of the various engagements, coordination of the co-design process, and implementation of STEP in ‘STEP into the Future’. She drew on her research interests in STS and Technology Assessment, and was also motivated by her interest in transdisciplinary inquiry. Marks was invited to participate as an academic social scientist with expertise in biotechnology governance and STS critiques of public engagement in science. She participated in a stakeholder workshop, in the multi-stakeholder workshop and in one of the ‘STEP into the Future’ events (on synthetic biology). The study draws on our experience and observation of the events, as well as on our interpretations of the reports, feedback (collected by independent evaluators) and outcomes. While Marks’ role was closer to the classic role of social scientist brought in to provide ‘social expertise’ to public engagement work, Russell’s role was more unusual, and lay somewhere between an ethnographic ‘laboratory’ study (but in a policy context) and transdisciplinary action research.

This article contributes to the growing literature on reflexive analyses of public engagement (Calvert and Martin, 2009; Chilvers, 2013; Goven, 2006; Irwin, 2001, 2006). We are not attempting what Lynch calls ‘reflexive objectification’ (2000: 30–1) where analysts are thought to have a more detached and true understanding of the situation; rather, we apply critical tools from sociology and STS to examine this process of public engagement and our roles in it, and propose alternative (to mainstream instrumental approaches) ways of thinking and doing public engagement (what Lynch might call ‘interpretative reflexivity’, 2000: 32–3).

In what follows, we highlight theoretical contributions from STS that can underpin a constructive approach that stays committed to some of the critical roots of STS, but aims to avoid ‘corrosive’ critique (explained below). We then examine our case study, STEP, considering its positioning within a policy setting and its contributions to opening up discussions about a range of biosciences and biotechnologies. We look at examples and opportunities for critique and care, and how public engagement approaches like STEP may create space for a normative sociology of bio-knowledge. We also consider the difficulties encountered by STS scholars and sociologists when they engage with researchers and practitioners from other fields. We then discuss the overall limitations and opportunities for a constructive, sociological approach and reflect on the implications for future encounters between social science, publics and bio-knowledge.

The spaces that STEP created – policy side rooms?

Australia has a relatively marginal position in relation to the global biotechnology industry. This means that the private sector is less dominant in setting the innovation agenda here than, for example, in the US. There is pressure for the government to support industry, including by promoting public acceptance of emerging science and technologies. Australian government agencies have seen a role here for public engagement. ⁶ The public awareness and community engagement (PACE) program was therefore an important part of the National Enabling Technology Strategy (NETS), with a remit to improve its community engagement work (Russell, 2013). NETS-PACE received a significant proportion of the budget as well as rhetorical support from within NETS and from the then Minister, Senator Kim Carr. However, this did not mean that it was central to policy advice or development, which was dealt with by a separate (though connected) policy program.

Salter and Jones (2006: 350) argue that ‘core’ policy actors (and agencies) are those that align with the current dominant ‘policy paradigm’ and are thereby given cultural authority. While what counts as the core and the periphery may change over time, this way of thinking about policy highlights that the creation of a program or other entity ostensibly connected to policy is not sufficient to create policy-change. If the new entity does not align its ways of thinking and doing with the dominant policy paradigm (or transform the dominant paradigm), it will remain at the periphery and will struggle to have any influence.

So while NETS-PACE was part of the overall government strategy on enabling technologies, its role in public engagement (which might enable people to articulate opposition to an area of biosciences) does not necessarily align with the policy paradigm of NETS, which was supportive of the tellingly labelled ‘enabling technologies’. As such, NETS-PACE and the STEP program remained at the periphery of policy, with an implicit role in ‘managing’ both stakeholder and public responses to emerging technologies, particularly when those responses were negative. Specifically, while STEP was praised and supported within the department, it did not have a policy mandate; it could create a framework for ‘best practice’ in public engagement, but there was no promise that this would ever become government policy.

Therefore, we argue that the spaces created by STEP for assembling matters of concern were not ‘policy rooms’ proper (Nowotny, 2007; Webster, 2007). While we accept Nowotny’s (2007: 480) argument that it is difficult to point exactly to where policies are made (given the co-constitution of science, technology, policy and society, and given the complex and multi-sited influences on policies), we follow Webster’s usage of the word here and deploy the label ‘policy room’ to indicate spaces where government policy is made; ‘the institutional space occupied by established science and technology policy’ (Webster, 2007: 461). We are talking here for instance about where moratoria on genetically modified crops may be instituted, or where regulatory frameworks for nanotechnology may be set up. Policy making did not happen in STEP spaces, although policy actors were invited in with other stakeholders.

Nowotny argues that there might be important policy-related rooms (i.e. not policy rooms proper but rooms where discussions and decisions may influence policy), situated ‘below the upper floor’ (2007: 480). However, we like to think of the STEP spaces in a less hierarchical way as occupying ‘side rooms’; connected to policy rooms, with access to policy issues, and with some degree of policy legitimacy and potential impact. Indeed, although on the margin, these ‘side rooms’ opened up a number of possibilities, in particular because they were not as constrained by institutional structures (Papadopoulos, 2011: 183–5). It was therefore possible to construct new spaces: new knowledge spaces (Webster, 2007), where neglected things could be ‘assembled’ (Latour, 2004; Puig de la Bellacasa, 2011). Overall, STEP was both less influential and less constrained than its position in government might have suggested.

Framing of the side rooms: the importance of critical insights

Critique was an important driver of the STEP process. Social science academics (e.g. Kyle and Dodds, 2009; Lyons and Whelan, 2010) and non-governmental organisations (NGOs) including environmental, consumer health and union groups had been critical of NETS in an ongoing way; addressing (managing) this critique was a rationale for initiating the engagement process. So in an important sense, radical critique of the usual approach to the governance of the biosciences and emerging technologies was a key reason for STEP to start.

Importantly though, in the way STEP was conducted, these critical views were not simply managed away. Russell was interested in using STEP to bring together the above critics and the people who supported the approaches they were criticising. The hope was that assembling and making visible these different matters of concern (about risk governance, about the importance of emerging technologies in Australia’s future prosperity, etc.) would open up normative assumptions and latent premises underlying decision makers’, but also social scientists’ and NGOs’, approaches to emerging technologies and public engagement.

Russell also deployed her own critical background in STS and Technology Assessment to bring these insights into the STEP side rooms. She drew on STS arguments that participatory, rather than elitist, approaches to governance and public engagement are important to open up the aforementioned normative assumptions. As such, the spaces created by STEP were based on critical insights about engagement processes (how we should talk about emerging science and technology), but not about content (what we should talk about, what risk is, etc.). Inevitably, tensions arose at the juxtaposition of diverse perspectives (similar to findings by Hendriks et al., 2007).

Tensions in the side rooms

An important early tension involved different conceptions of the nature and role of public engagement in emerging biotechnology development. Scientists focused on education, while industry representatives discussed ‘acceptance’ as a goal of engagement. This was despite the framing by Russell and introductory material that aimed to encourage a broader view of engagement. For example, Russell, in setting the context for the multi-stakeholder workshop, described a spectrum of approaches to involving publics in science and technology decision-making. She emphasised the shift from technocracy, to public education campaigns, to participatory approaches in public engagement, a shift influenced by STS. She asked participants to design potential engagement activities for STEP, specifically ones that would involve citizens in decision-making. Despite this, the scientists in particular remained committed to educational approaches.

Marks, in interacting with scientists in this exercise, was frustrated by their education focus, which included suggestions for better web-pages, more outreach activities, education brochures, etc. She was, however, hesitant to bring her radical-critical insights to contradict them (perhaps by highlighting the social construction of bio-knowledge and sociological findings that mistrust of science does not necessarily reflect misunderstanding). Her reluctance was in part due to some of these scientists earlier highlighting how difficult it was for them to be involved in STEP at all, and thus performing ‘suffering’ (Brown and Michael, 2002) to indicate authentic commitment to the process. ⁷

Here, Marks and Russell’s matters of concern – opening up spaces for public involvement – could not be ‘assembled’ (in Latour and Puig de la Bellacasa’s sense) with scientists’ need to create public support through science education. Nonetheless, these different matters of concern were made visible through these discussions, and opened up avenues for Russell to bring them together through ‘tinkering’ with the framing of future events.

In a subsequent ‘STEP into the Future’ project on nanotechnology and energy, participants were asked to think through different ways of defining the ‘energy problem’ in Australia. Russell, in framing the interaction in this way, was hoping to encourage discussion of the wider issue of how technology development is influenced by problem definition. While some of the scientists again took on the role of educators, and publics took on the role of learners (similar to Kerr et al., 2007), some groups did engage in fresh conversations about these broader underlying assumptions. They thus aligned with Russell’s as well as others’ matter of concern, and these assumptions were opened up for further discussion. Further tinkering by Russell led to a later project on nanotechnology and informed choice involving a citizen panel process being designed with clear separation between information provision and deliberation. An information evening was held, in which participants were presented with one-page briefs from a panel of key informants representing different perspectives, expertise and views on the topic; they also interacted with this panel in a question and answer session. However, their deliberations – in a modified world café and a ‘dotmocracy’ ⁸ session – did not involve the ‘expert’ panel and were facilitated by an independent facilitator. In this case, citizens were able to deliberate without the influence of ‘experts’; the latter said they were impressed with ‘how engaged’ the citizen panel was. This suggests some aspects of scientists’ matters of concern regarding science–public interactions could be re-assembled with social scientists’ interest in democratisation into new matters of concern.

Neglected issues and unacknowledged normative assumptions?

The use of a human rights approach to a normative sociology of bio-knowledge is helpful in highlighting how some areas of knowledge production may exclude or disenfranchise particular groups of people. For example, focusing on the distributive justice of innovation can make visible who receives the benefits of new developments and who misses out. We believe there is a need to complement these kinds of analyses by also examining the unacknowledged normative assumptions (Wynne, 2006) or ‘latent premises’ (Russell et al., 2010) behind technological developments and underlying ideas about desirable futures and the ways in which ‘benefits’ shape technological directions and ‘progress’ for everyone.

For example, a STEP nano-bionics forum, though highly policy relevant in informing current policy decisions about the ethical conduct of clinical trials, restricted the contribution of citizens to input from users of nano-bionic devices and their carers about how these devices should be tested. Larger questions about the desirability of developing nano-bionic devices such as ear implants and artificial eyes, including issues of disability and human enhancement, were framed out. Interestingly, some of these issues emerged regardless, suggesting that the framing was open enough to enable unexpected matters of concern to be gathered. Thus we see value in genuine engagement with neglected voices about neglected issues, particularly if opportunities exist to improve policy, but emphasise the need for engagement that deals with the value premises of new science and technology.

One ‘STEP into the Future’ event, a multi-stakeholder forum on ‘Societal Implications of Enabling Technologies’, took a very broad approach to making visible normative assumptions in relation to biosciences and emerging technologies. Participants in mixed groups were asked to consider, very broadly, the societal implications of various areas of technological development. In another exercise, groups were asked to map the decision-making context of emerging technologies. This demonstrated the very different understandings and priorities that come from different perspectives and the ultimate complexity of this context. Care in this case study was practised by those who were engaging the participants by paying attention to neglected perspectives, and by trying to improve a situation where important views about social dimensions of technologies were not being heard.

A fascinating result from evaluation of this forum was that some participants reported a lower awareness of the topic after the forum than before. Based on their other responses, we interpret this to reflect an appreciation that the topic was far more complex than they had first thought. This led to discomfort for some participants, which, like ambivalence, may be a valuable resource in opening up these conversations (Russell, 2013).

New décor in the policy side rooms

An important feature of STEP was the involvement of the field of community engagement, which is strong in Australia, particularly at local government levels. Methods used in the workshops and forums were designed by some of the leading engagement practitioners in the country, who also facilitated these events. This field is informed to some extent by deliberative democracy theory, but is primarily a field of practice, built on the design, practice and evaluation of community engagement interventions across a range of decision-making domains. Practitioners are best known for creating safe spaces where people can bring their intelligence, experience and creativity to a discussion. What this field and these practitioners brought to the STEP side rooms was not new furniture, in the sense of new policy instruments or rubrics, so much as new décor. They created a new atmosphere, with their ice-breakers, post-it notes and world cafes, ⁹ and even more importantly with their warmth, their appreciation and their commitment to creating a safe space for good conversation. These practitioners brought care and an invitation for participants to care. This was care as practice, as interaction, and as Mol (2008) puts it, ‘calm, persistent but forgiving effort to improve the situation’. It was care that accommodated tensions, created symmetry and allowed for transformation, at least to some extent.

An example is a synthetic biology scoping workshop, which was held in conjunction with a policy forum organised by the innovation department. Participants moved from the theatrette, in which they had sat through the obligatory expert presentations (plus ‘other’ perspectives of an NGO representative and a lawyer), followed by a question and answer session, into a workshop room set up like a café. They worked in groups, moved about the room, wrote on paper tablecloths; they made statements, reflected on them, grouped them, questioned them, and elaborated and voted on them. The atmosphere was very different from the preceding forum, and created space for alternative perspectives (from STS scholars, NGOs, artists, lawyers) to have influence. The workshop resulted in an emergent understanding of synthetic biology development and its contradictions and tensions. The central themes were visions of synthetic biology as open and convergent and as socially responsible and responsive, and a dystopian vision of life as a raw material.

Policy influence?

An independent evaluator who surveyed participants identified lack of policy influence as the major weakness of STEP. This was certainly a reflection of STEP not having made it into the policy room proper. But was this criticism based on realistic ambitions (Hennen, 2012)? Multiple factors, actors and inputs influence policy. The governance of new biosciences and biotechnologies is complex, involving at times new arrangements, new assemblages, of actors, objects, ideas and perspectives. Perhaps STEP can provide opportunities to assemble matters of concern. However, direct policy influence is often a ‘mirage’ (Wynne, 2007; see also Davies et al., 2009; Hennen, 2012), and not in fact the intent of the STEP side rooms. Their influence is more likely to come from presenting new perspectives and lenses to those who will later enter the policy rooms proper, creating opportunities for them to see things a little differently, including their own roles. The STEP community included key stakeholders and experts who provide advice to policy makers and their participation probably (hopefully) led to policy influence that was as significant as any direct impacts of the engagement reports on policy.

For example, the synthetic biology workshop revealed a vision for this field as following a different path from previous biosciences and biotechnologies (especially genetically modified food): open, responsible and responsive. The workshop clarified this vision and highlighted the importance of public engagement. In the end, the picture built up in this STEP workshop integrated a range of matters of concern, both apprehensions and aspirations. This created a question and a vision for scientists about how to move into the future, rather than how to reduce the impact of what they (sometimes unquestioningly) do. To build on this vision, scientists, policy makers and social scientists need to care in at least two ways; by considering those neglected things and people, but also by being committed and responsible for their new knowledge; they need to consider the part they play in constructing this new field.

Perhaps the value and the challenge of opening up the question of how a new field constructs itself are highlighted by the attitudes of those who were not engaged. In the government forum on synthetic biology, a prominent scientist in the area, who had not attended any earlier workshops, explained why he refused to be involved in public engagement exercises in a slide that simply read, ‘postmodernism’. Apparently it goes without saying that postmodernism is a direction to be avoided by any rational scientist. We can only hope that, had the anti-postmodernism scientist attended earlier STEP workshops, shared matters of concerns with others, and heard their matters of concern, his criticism may have been ‘moderated’ (Latour, 2004). Perhaps this scientist’s frustration with postmodernism (which might be a frustration with corrosive critique) could have been assembled with social scientists’ frustrations with scientists’ hubris and unwillingness to think about the social context of their work; this might have created an ongoing joint interest in respecting each other’s work and building socially responsible bio-knowledge.