Literature DB >> 34050014

What we know about effective public engagement on CRISPR and beyond.

Dietram A Scheufele1,2, Nicole M Krause3, Isabelle Freiling4, Dominique Brossard3,2.   

Abstract

Advances in gene editing technologies for human, plant, and animal applications have led to calls from bench and social scientists, as well as a wide variety of societal stakeholders, for broad public engagement in the decision-making about these new technologies. Unfortunately, there is limited understanding among the groups calling for public engagement on CRISPR and other emerging technologies about 1) the goals of this engagement, 2) the modes of engagement and what we know from systematic social scientific evaluations about their effectiveness, and 3) how to connect the products of these engagement exercises to societal decision or policy making. Addressing all three areas, we systematize common goals, principles, and modalities of public engagement. We evaluate empirically the likely successes of various modalities. Finally, we outline three pathways forward that deserve close attention from the scientific community as we navigate the world of Life 2.0.

Entities:  

Keywords:  deliberation; political communication; public engagement; public participation; science communication

Year:  2021        PMID: 34050014      PMCID: PMC8179128          DOI: 10.1073/pnas.2004835117

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A        ISSN: 0027-8424            Impact factor:   11.205


  13 in total

1.  Public engagement with science.

Authors:  Alan I Leshner
Journal:  Science       Date:  2003-02-14       Impact factor: 47.728

2.  Interpersonal amplification of risk? Citizen discussions and their impact on perceptions of risks and benefits of a biological research facility.

Authors:  Andrew R Binder; Dietram A Scheufele; Dominique Brossard; Albert C Gunther
Journal:  Risk Anal       Date:  2010-10-29       Impact factor: 4.000

3.  When do children trust the expert? Benevolence information influences children's trust more than expertise.

Authors:  Asheley R Landrum; Candice M Mills; Angie M Johnston
Journal:  Dev Sci       Date:  2013-06-01

4.  U.S. attitudes on human genome editing.

Authors:  Dietram A Scheufele; Michael A Xenos; Emily L Howell; Kathleen M Rose; Dominique Brossard; Bruce W Hardy
Journal:  Science       Date:  2017-08-11       Impact factor: 47.728

5.  Promises and perils of gene drives: Navigating the communication of complex, post-normal science.

Authors:  Dominique Brossard; Pam Belluck; Fred Gould; Christopher D Wirz
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2019-01-14       Impact factor: 11.205

6.  Gaining trust as well as respect in communicating to motivated audiences about science topics.

Authors:  Susan T Fiske; Cydney Dupree
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2014-09-15       Impact factor: 11.205

7.  Science communication as political communication.

Authors:  Dietram A Scheufele
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2014-09-15       Impact factor: 11.205

8.  Scientists' Prioritization of Communication Objectives for Public Engagement.

Authors:  Anthony Dudo; John C Besley
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-02-25       Impact factor: 3.240

9.  Science to the rescue or contingent progress? Comparing 10 years of public, expert and policy discourses on new and emerging science and technology in the United Kingdom.

Authors:  Melanie Smallman
Journal:  Public Underst Sci       Date:  2017-05-11

10.  Scientists' incentives and attitudes toward public communication.

Authors:  Kathleen M Rose; Ezra M Markowitz; Dominique Brossard
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2020-01-07       Impact factor: 11.205

View more
  2 in total

1.  Public engagement: Faculty lived experiences and perspectives underscore barriers and a changing culture in academia.

Authors:  Mikhaila N Calice; Becca Beets; Luye Bao; Dietram A Scheufele; Isabelle Freiling; Dominique Brossard; Noah Weeth Feinstein; Laura Heisler; Travis Tangen; Jo Handelsman
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2022-06-15       Impact factor: 3.752

2.  Life 2.0-A CRISPR path to a sustainable planet.

Authors:  Dana Carroll; Barbara J Meyer
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2021-06-01       Impact factor: 11.205

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.