Lab Work Goes Social, and Vice Versa: Strategising Public Engagement Processes: Commentary on: “What Happens in the Lab Does Not Stay in the Lab: Applying Midstream Modulation to Enhance Critical Reflection in the Laboratory”
Science and Engineering Ethics 17 (4):791-800 (2011)
AbstractMidstream modulation is a form of public engagement with science which benefits from strategic application of science and technology studies (STS) insights accumulated over nearly 20 years. These have been developed from STS researchers’ involvement in practical engagement processes and research with scientists, science funders, policy and other public stakeholders. The strategic aim of this specific method, to develop what is termed second-order reflexivity amongst scientist-technologists, builds upon and advances earlier more general STS work. However this method is focused and structured so as to help generate such reflexivity—over the ‘upstream’ questions which have been identified in other STS research as important public issues for scientific research, development and innovation—amongst practising scientists-technologists in their specialist contexts (public or private, in principle). This is a different focus from virtually all such previous work, and offers novel opportunities for those key broader issues to be opened up. The further development of these promising results depends on some important conditions such as identifying and engaging research funders and other stakeholders like affected publics in similar exercises. Implementing these conditions could connect the productive impacts of midstream modulation with wider public engagement work, including with ‘uninvited’ public engagement with science. It would also generate broader institutional and political changes in the larger networks of institutional actors which constitute contemporary technoscientific innovation and governance processes. All of these various broader dimensions, far beyond the laboratory alone, need to be appropriately open, committed to democratic needs, and reflexive, for the aims of midstream modulation to be achieved, whilst allowing specialists to work as specialists
Similar books and articles
What happens in the Lab: Applying Midstream Modulation to Enhance Critical Reflection in the Laboratory. [REVIEW]Daan Schuurbiers - 2011 - Science and Engineering Ethics 17 (4):769-788.
Introduction: Engaging with nanotechnologies – engaging differently? [REVIEW]Tee Rogers-Hayden, Alison Mohr & Nick Pidgeon - 2007 - NanoEthics 1 (2):123-130.
Avoiding empty rhetoric: Engaging publics in debates about nanotechnologies.Renee Kyle & Susan Dodds - 2009 - Science and Engineering Ethics 15 (1):81-96.
The Broad Challenge of Public Engagement in Science.Rinie Est - 2011 - Science and Engineering Ethics 17 (4):639-648.
The Broad Challenge of Public Engagement in Science: Commentary on: “Constitutional Moments in Governing Science and Technology”.Rinie van Est - 2011 - Science and Engineering Ethics 17 (4):639-648.
On nanotechnology and ambivalence: The politics of enthusiasm. [REVIEW]Matthew Kearnes & Brian Wynne - 2007 - NanoEthics 1 (2):131-142.
Participation as Post-Fordist Politics: Demos, New Labour, and Science Policy. [REVIEW]Charles Thorpe - 2010 - Minerva 48 (4):389-411.
Towards more confidence: about the roles of social scientists in participatory policy making.Corinna Jung - 2009 - Poiesis and Praxis 6 (1-2):125-129.
Publics in the Making: Mediating Different Methods of Engagement and the Publics These Construct: Commentary on: “Technologies of Democracy: Experiments and Demonstrations”. [REVIEW]Alison Mohr - 2011 - Science and Engineering Ethics 17 (4):667-672.
Machineries for Making Publics: Inscribing and De-scribing Publics in Public Engagement.Ulrike Felt & Maximilian Fochler - 2010 - Minerva 48 (3):219-238.
Community engagement to facilitate, legitimize and accelerate the advancement of nanotechnologies in australia.Kristen Lyons & James Whelan - 2010 - NanoEthics 4 (1):53-66.
Constitutional Moments in Governing Science and Technology.Sheila Jasanoff - 2011 - Science and Engineering Ethics 17 (4):621-638.
From 'Implications' to 'Dimensions': Science, Medicine and Ethics in Society. [REVIEW]Martyn D. Pickersgill - 2013 - Health Care Analysis 21 (1):31-42.
Technologies of Democracy: Experiments and Demonstrations.Brice Laurent - 2011 - Science and Engineering Ethics 17 (4):649-666.
Added to PP
Historical graph of downloads
Citations of this work
Definitions and Conceptual Dimensions of Responsible Research and Innovation: A Literature Review.Mirjam Burget, Emanuele Bardone & Margus Pedaste - 2017 - Science and Engineering Ethics 23 (1):1-19.
A Mobilising Concept? Unpacking Academic Representations of Responsible Research and Innovation.Barbara E. Ribeiro, Robert D. J. Smith & Kate Millar - 2017 - Science and Engineering Ethics 23 (1):81-103.
Midstream Modulation in Biotechnology Industry: Redefining What is 'Part of the Job' of Researchers in Industry. [REVIEW]Steven M. Flipse, Maarten Ca van der Sanden & Patricia Osseweijer - 2013 - Science and Engineering Ethics 19 (3):1141-1164.
Midstream Modulation in Biotechnology Industry: Redefining What is 'Part of the Job' of Researchers in Industry. [REVIEW]Steven M. Flipse, Maarten C. A. Sanden & Patricia Osseweijer - 2013 - Science and Engineering Ethics 19 (3):1141-1164.
Editorial Overview: Public Science and Technology Scholars: Engaging Whom?Erik Fisher - 2011 - Science and Engineering Ethics 17 (4):607-620.
References found in this work
The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.Thomas Samuel Kuhn - 1962 - Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Midstream Modulation of Technology: Governance From Within.Carl Mitcham, Roop L. Mahajan & Erik Fisher - 2006 - Bulletin of Science, Technology and Society 26 (6):485-496.
The Fifth Branch: Science Advisers as Policymakers.Sheila Jasanoff - 1990 - Harvard Univ Press.
Plant Sciences and the Public Good.Brian Wynne, Claire Waterton, Jane Taylor & Katrina Stengel - 2009 - Science, Technology, and Human Values 34 (3):289-312.