Skip to main content

Taking Our Own Medicine: On an Experiment in Science Communication

Abstract

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1

Notes

  1. This is not a quote from an actual person, but a compilation of observations and different experiences produced by the encounter with the installation discussed in the present paper.

  2. Although, if we had conceived of ourselves as artists, we might have thought about this point differently.

  3. This method was chosen because it did not disturb the experiment of testing the installation without mediation. Denmark does not have a requirement or even tradition for Institutional Review Board approval of social science. To obtain informed consent would have ruined the experiment, but visitors were clearly warned that they would be videotaped for research purposes by a large sign at the entrance to the installation.

References

  • Dalsgaard, B. (2007). Spatial communication. http://www.stamcellenetvaerket.dk/eng-spatial%20comm!.html. Accessed August 13, 2011.

  • Douglas, M. (1996). Thought styles. London: SAGE.

    Google Scholar 

  • Douglas, M., & Wildavsky, A. (1983). Risk and culture. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Gregory, J., & Miller, S. (1998). Science in public. Communication culture and credibility. New York: Plenum Trade.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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).

  • 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)].

  • 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. http://openarchive.cbs.dk/handle/10398/7130. Accessed August 13, 2011.

  • Horst, M. (2005). Cloning sensations: Mass mediated articulation of social responses to controversial biotechnology. Public Understanding of Science, 14(2), 185–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Horst, M. (2008). The laboratory of public debate: Understanding the acceptability of stem cell research. Science and Public Policy, 35(3), 197–205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Horst, M. (2010). Collective closure?—Public debate as the solution to controversies about science and technology. Acta Sociologica, 53(3), 195–211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Horst, M., & Dalsgaard, B. (2007). The stem cell network. www.stamcellenetvaerket.dk. Accessed August 13, 2011.

  • 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.

  • Irwin, A. (1995). Citizen science a study of people expertise and sustainable development. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Irwin, A. (2001). Constructing the scientific citizen: Science and democracy in the biosciences. Public Understanding of Science, 10(1), 1–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Irwin, A. (2006). The politics of talk: Coming to terms with ‘new’ scientific governance. Social studies of science, 36(2), 299–322.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Irwin, A., & Wynne, B. (Eds.). (1996). Misunderstanding science? Cambridge: Press Syndicate of the University of Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jespersen, K. J. V. (2004). A history of Denmark. Basingstoke & New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Latour, B. (1987). Science in action. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Latour, B. (1999). Pandora’s hope. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Law, J. (1986). Power action and belief. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Law, J., & Hassard, J. (1999). Actor network theory and after. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewenstein, B. V. (2002). Editorial: A decade of public understanding. Public Understanding of Science, 11(1), 1–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Michael, M. (1998). Between citizen and consumer: Multiplying the meanings of the “public understandings of science”. Public Understanding of Science, 7(3), 313–327.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nowotny, H., Scott, P., & Gibbons, M. (2001). Re-thinking science—knowledge and the public in an age of uncertainty. Cambridge: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rowe, G., & Frewer, L. J. (2005). A typology of public engagement mechanisms. Science, Technology and Human Values, 30(2), 251–290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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).

  • Selin, C. (2011). Negotiating plausibility: Intervening in the future of nanotechnology. Science and Engineering Ethics 17 (this issue).

  • Stengers, I. (1997). Power and invention: Situating science. Minneapolis: The University of Minnesota Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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).

Download references

Acknowledgments

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

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Maja Horst.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Horst, M. Taking Our Own Medicine: On an Experiment in Science Communication. Sci Eng Ethics 17, 801–815 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-011-9306-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-011-9306-y

Keywords