Science and Engineering Ethics

, Volume 17, Issue 4, pp 801–815 | Cite as

Taking Our Own Medicine: On an Experiment in Science Communication

  • Maja HorstEmail author


In 2007 a social scientist and a designer created a spatial installation to communicate social science research about the regulation of emerging science and technology. The rationale behind the experiment was to improve scientific knowledge production by making the researcher sensitive to new forms of reactions and objections. Based on an account of the conceptual background to the installation and the way it was designed, the paper discusses the nature of the engagement enacted through the experiment. It is argued that experimentation is a crucial way of making social science about science communication and engagement more robust.


Science communication Spatial installation Public engagement Experimentation 



The experiment and research were made possible through a grant from the Danish Research Council for the Humanities.


  1. Dalsgaard, B. (2007). Spatial communication.!.html. Accessed August 13, 2011.
  2. Douglas, M. (1996). Thought styles. London: SAGE.Google Scholar
  3. Douglas, M., & Wildavsky, A. (1983). Risk and culture. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  4. Gieryn, T. F. (1995). Boundaries of science. In S. Jasanoff, et al. (Eds.), Handbook of science and technology studies (pp. 393–443). Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.Google Scholar
  5. Gregory, J., & Miller, S. (1998). Science in public. Communication culture and credibility. New York: Plenum Trade.Google Scholar
  6. Hackett, E. J., Rhoten, W. B., & Diana, R. (2011). Engaged, embedded, enjoined: Science and technology studies in the national science foundation. Science and Engineering Ethics 17(this issue).Google Scholar
  7. Hagendijk, R., Healey, P., Horst, M., & Irwin, A. (2005). STAGE: Science, technology and governance in Europe: Challenges of public engagement [European Commission: (HPSE-CT2001-50003)].Google Scholar
  8. Horst, M. (2003). Controversy and collectivityarticulations of social and natural order in mass mediated representations of biotechnology. Copenhagen Business School, Doctoral School on knowledge and management. Accessed August 13, 2011.
  9. Horst, M. (2005). Cloning sensations: Mass mediated articulation of social responses to controversial biotechnology. Public Understanding of Science, 14(2), 185–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Horst, M. (2007). Public expectations of gene therapy: Scientific futures and their performative effects on scientific citizenship. Science, Technology and Human Values, 32(2), 150–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Horst, M. (2008). The laboratory of public debate: Understanding the acceptability of stem cell research. Science and Public Policy, 35(3), 197–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Horst, M. (2010). Collective closure?—Public debate as the solution to controversies about science and technology. Acta Sociologica, 53(3), 195–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Horst, M., & Dalsgaard, B. (2007). The stem cell network. Accessed August 13, 2011.
  14. Horst, M., & Michael, M. (2011). On the shoulder of idiots: Rethinking science communication as ‘Event’. Science as Culture. 1470–1189, First published on 08 April 2011.Google Scholar
  15. Irwin, A. (1995). Citizen science a study of people expertise and sustainable development. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  16. Irwin, A. (2001). Constructing the scientific citizen: Science and democracy in the biosciences. Public Understanding of Science, 10(1), 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Irwin, A. (2006). The politics of talk: Coming to terms with ‘new’ scientific governance. Social studies of science, 36(2), 299–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Irwin, A., & Wynne, B. (Eds.). (1996). Misunderstanding science? Cambridge: Press Syndicate of the University of Cambridge.Google Scholar
  19. Jespersen, K. J. V. (2004). A history of Denmark. Basingstoke & New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  20. Joss, S. (1999). Introduction. Public participation in science and technology policy—and decision-making—ephemeral phenomenon or lasting change? Science and Public Policy, 26(5), 290–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Latour, B. (1987). Science in action. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Latour, B. (1999). Pandora’s hope. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Latour, B. (2000). When things strike back: A possible contribution of ‘science studies’ to the social sciences. British Journal of Sociology, 51(1), 107–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Law, J. (1986). Power action and belief. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  25. Law, J., & Hassard, J. (1999). Actor network theory and after. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar
  26. Lewenstein, B. V. (2002). Editorial: A decade of public understanding. Public Understanding of Science, 11(1), 1–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Michael, M. (1998). Between citizen and consumer: Multiplying the meanings of the “public understandings of science”. Public Understanding of Science, 7(3), 313–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Nowotny, H., Scott, P., & Gibbons, M. (2001). Re-thinking science—knowledge and the public in an age of uncertainty. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  29. Rowe, G., & Frewer, L. J. (2005). A typology of public engagement mechanisms. Science, Technology and Human Values, 30(2), 251–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Schuurbiers, D. (2011). 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(this issue).Google Scholar
  31. Selin, C. (2011). Negotiating plausibility: Intervening in the future of nanotechnology. Science and Engineering Ethics 17 (this issue).Google Scholar
  32. Stengers, I. (1997). Power and invention: Situating science. Minneapolis: The University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  33. Van Oudheusden, M. (2011). Questioning ‘participation’: A critical appraisal of its conceptualization in a flemish participatory technology assessment. Science and Engineering Ethics 17(this issue).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Media, Cognition and Communication, Faculty of HumanitiesUniversity of CopenhagenCopenhagen SDenmark

Personalised recommendations