Science and Engineering Ethics

, Volume 17, Issue 4, pp 791–800 | Cite as

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”
  • Brian WynneEmail author


Midstream 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.


Midstream modulation Upstream public engagement in science Reflexivity Governance of innovation Institutional change 


  1. BBSRC. (2004). Review of BBSRC-funded research relevant to crop science: A report for BBSRC Council. Swindon, UK: Biotechnology and Biosciences Research Council.Google Scholar
  2. BBSRC. (2007). Crop science initiative. Swindon, UK: Biotechnology and Biosciences Research Council. Last Accessed 30 Sept 2011.
  3. Doubleday, R., & Wynne, B. (2011). Despotism and democracy in the United Kingdom: Experiments in reframing citizenship. In S. Jasanoff (Ed.), Reframing rights: Bioconstitutionalism in a genomic age (chap. 11, pp. 239–261). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  4. Fisher, E., Mahajan, R., & Mitcham, C. (2006). Midstream modulation of technology: Governance from within. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 26(6), 485–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Genome British Columbia (2011). Pathways of integration of social sciences and humanities with genomics research. Working group, chair R. Ommer, Vancouver BC, Canada. Last Accessed 19 Sept 2011.
  6. Jasanoff, S. (1990). The fifth branch: Science advisers as policymakers. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Kuhn, T. S. (1962, 1970). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago and London: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Latimer, J., & Skeggs, B. (2011). The politics of imagination: Keeping open and critical. Sociological Reviews, 59(3), 393–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Levidow, L., & Carr, S. (2010). GM food on trial: Testing European democracy. New York and Abingdon, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
  10. Marris, C., Wynne, B., Simmons, P., & Weldon, S. (2001). Public attitudes to agricultural biotechnologies in Europe, PABE. EU FP7 Research Project report, FAIR Programme, Brussels D-G Research. Last Accessed 19 Sept 2011.
  11. Schuurbiers, D. (2011). What happens in the lab does not stay in the lab: Applying midstream modulation to enhance reflection in the laboratory. Science and Engineering Ethics, 17(4) (this issue).Google Scholar
  12. Stengel, K., Taylor, J., Waterton, C., & Wynne, B. (2009). Plant sciences and the public good. Science, Technology & Human Values, 34, 289–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Waterton, C., Grove-White, R., Mansfield, T., & Wynne, B. (2001). Scientists reflect on science: How scientists reflect upon their experience of the research-environment-policy interface. UK ESRC End-of-Award report, April 2001, CSEC, Lancaster University.Google Scholar
  14. Webster, A. (1989). The privatisation of public research: The case of the plant breeding institute. Science and Public Policy, 16, 224–232.Google Scholar
  15. Wynne, B. (1989). Frameworks of rationality in risk assessment: Towards the testing of naive sociology. In J. Brown (Ed.), Environmental threats: Perception, analysis, management (pp. 33–47). London and New York: Frances Pinter.Google Scholar
  16. Wynne, B. (2001). Creating public alienation: Cultures of risk and ethics in expert discourses on GMOs. Science as Culture, 10(4), 445–481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Wynne, B. (2002). Risk and environment as legitimatory discourses for technology: Reflexivity inside-out. Current Sociology, 20, 459–477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Wynne, B. (2008). Public participation in science and technology: Performing and obscuring a political—conceptual category mistake. East Asian Science, Technology and Society: An International Journal, 1(1), 147–171.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.UK ESRC Centre for Economic and Social Aspects of Genomics, Cesagen, Department of SociologyLancaster UniversityBailrigg, LancasterUK

Personalised recommendations