Anderson, E. (2011). Democracy, public policy, and lay assessments of scientific testimony. Episteme, 8(2), 144–164. https://doi.org/10.3366/epi.2011.0013
Archer, A., Cawston, A., Matheson, B., & Geuskens, M. (2020). Celebrity, democracy, and epistemic power. Perspectives on Politics, 18, 27–42.
Barrotta, P., & Montuschi, E. (2018). The dam project: Who are the experts?. In P. Barrotta, & G. Scarafile (Eds.), Science and Democracy: Controversies and conflicts (pp. 17–34). John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Berg, P. (2008). Asilomar 1975: DNA modification secured. Nature, 455, 290–291.
Bührer, S., et al. (2017). Monitoring the evolution and benefits of responsible research and innovation (MoRRI), sub-task 8.1: Collection of data on RRI benefits, report (European Commission, Oct. 1, 2017).
Burgess, R. A., et al. (2021). The COVID-19 vaccines rush: Participatory community engagement matters more than ever. The Lancet, 397, 8–10.
Buur, J., & Matthews, B. (2008). Participatory innovation. International Journal of Innovation Management, 12(03), 255–273.
Carel, H., & Kidd, I. J. (2014). Epistemic injustice in healthcare: A philosophical analysis. Medicine Health Care and Philosophy, 17(4), 529–540. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11019-014-9560-2
Carrier, M. (2017). Facing the credibility crisis of science: On the ambivalent role of pluralism in establishing relevance and reliability. Perspectives on science, 25, 439–464.
Carrier, M., & Irzik, G. (2019). Responsible research and innovation: Coming to grips with an ambitious concept. Synthese: 1–7.
Carrier, M., & Gartzlaff, M. (2020). Responsible research and innovation: Hopes and fears in the scientific community in Europe. Journal of Responsible Innovation, 7(2), 149–169.
Carus, A. (2008). Carnap and twentieth-century thought: Explication as enlightenment. Cambridge University Press.
Cook, K. S. (2013). Social exchange theory. In J. DeLamater, & A. Ward, Handbook of social psychology (6–88).
Critchley, C. R. (2008). Public opinion and trust in scientists: The role of the research context, and the perceived motivation of stem cell researchers. Public Understanding of Science, 17(3), 309–327.
de Melo-Martín, I., & Intemann, K. (2018). The fight against doubt: How to bridge the gap between scientists and the public. Oxford University Press.
Dellsén, F., & Baghramian, M. (2020). Disagreement in science: Introduction to the special issue. Synthese, s11229-020-02767–0.
Douglas, H. (2005). Inserting the public into science. In S. Maasen, & P. Weingart (Eds.), Democratization of Expertise? Exploring Novel Forms of Scientific Advice in Political Decision-Making, Sociology of the Sciences (24 vol., pp. 153–169). Springer Science & Business Media.
Driedger, S. M., Maier, R., & Jardine, C. (2021). Damned if you do, and damned if you don’t: Communicating about uncertainty and evolving science during the H1N1 influenza pandemic. Journal of Risk Research, 24(5), 574–592.
Duijf, H. (2021). Should one trust experts? Synthese: 1–24.
Dutilh Novaes, C. (2020). The role of trust in argumentation. Informal Logic, 40, 205–236.
Dutilh Novaes, C., & de Ridder, J. (2021). Is fake news old news?. In S. Bernecker, A. K. Flowerree, & T. Grundmann (Eds.), The Epistemology of Fake News. Oxford University Press.
Engage2020 (2015). What the future holds for societal engagement future engagement report. Deliverable 4.2 (March 2015).
European Commission. (2009). The lund declaration: Europe must focus on the grand challenges of our time. European Commission.
European Commission. (2014). The Rome declaration: Responsible research and innovation in Europe. European Commission.
Feyerabend, P. (1978). Science in a free society. Nlb.
Figueiredo Nascimento, S., et al. (2016). Citizen engagement in science and policy-making. Reflections and recommendations across the European commission, EUR 28328 EN. Publications Office of the European Union.
Fischhoff, B. (2013). The sciences of science communication. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110(Supplement_3), 14033–14039.
Foucault, M., Ewald, F., & Fontana, A. (2009). In M. Senellart, Ed.;, & G. Burchell (Eds.), Security, territory, population: Lectures at the Collège de France, 1977–1978 (1. vol.). Trans. Picador ed).
Franck, G. (2019). The economy of attention. Journal of Sociology, 55, 8–19.
Funk, C., Hefferon, M., Kennedy, B., & Johnson, C. (2019). Trust and mistrust in Americans’ views of scientific experts. Pew Research Center2.
Gauchat, G. (2012). Politicization of science in the public sphere: A study of public trust in the United States, 1974 to 2010. American sociological review, 77(2), 167–187.
genSET (2014). Recommendations for action on the gender dimension in science. 2nd edition. Portia Ltd. https://gender-summit.com/images/genSET_Recommendations_for_Action_on_the_Gender_Dimension_in_Science.pdf
Geoghegan-Quinn, M. (2014). Responsible research and innovation. Europe’s ability to respond to societal challenges. Publications Office of the European Union. https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/2be36f74-b490-409e-bb60-12fd438100fe
Goldenberg, M. (2021). Vaccine hesitancy. University of Pittsburgh.
Gura, T. (2013). Citizen science: Amateur experts. Nature, 496(7444), 259–261.
Gustafson, A., & Rice, R. E. (2020). A review of the effects of uncertainty in public science communication. Public Understanding of Science, 29(6), 614–633.
Hallal, P. C. (2021). SOS Brazil: Science under attack. The Lancet, 397, 373–374.
Hawley, K. (2014). Trust, distrust and commitment. Nous, 48, 1–20.
Hodge, F. S. (2012). No meaningful apology for American Indian unethical research abuses. Ethics and Behavior, 22, 431–444.
Huldtgren, A. (2014). Design for Values in ICT. In van den J. Hoven, et al. (Eds.), Handbook on Ethics, Values and Technological Design: Sources, Theory, Values and Application Domains (pp. 1–24). Springer.
Intemann, K. (2011). Diversity and dissent in science: Does democracy always serve feminist aims? In P. Rooney, et al. (Eds.), Feminist epistemology and philosophy of science (pp. 111–132). Springer.
Intemann, K., & de Melo-Martín, I. (2010). Social values and scientific evidence: The case of the HPV vaccines. Biology & philosophy, 25(2), 203–213.
Ipsos Mori. 2020. How has Covid-19 affected trust in scientists? https://www.ipsos.com/ipsos-mori/en-uk/ukri-research-how-has-covid-19-affected-trust-scientists
Jasanoff, S. (2003). Technologies of humility: Citizen participation in governing science. Minerva, 41(3), 223–244.
Jennings, W., Stoker, G., Bunting, H., Orri Valgarðsson, V., Gaskell, J., Devine, D., McKay, L., & Mills, M. C. (2021). Lack of trust, conspiracy beliefs, and social media use predict COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy. Vaccines,9(6), 593.
Jensen, J. D., Pokharel, M., et al. (2017). Communicating uncertain science to the public: How amount and source of uncertainty impact fatalism, backlash, and overload. Risk Analysis, 37(1), 40–51.
Johnson, B. B., & Slovic, P. (1995). Presenting uncertainty in health risk assessment: Initial studies of its effects on risk perception and trust. Risk analysis, 15(4), 485–494.
Johnson, B. B., & Slovic, P. (1998). Lay views on uncertainty in environmental health risk assessment. Journal of Risk Research, 1(4), 261–279.
Katzman, J. G., & Katzman, J. W. (2021). Primary care clinicians as COVID-19 vaccine ambassadors. Journal of Primary Care & Community Health.
Kelp, N. C., Witt, J. K., & Sivakumar, G. (2022). To vaccinate or not? the role played by uncertainty communication on public understanding and behavior regarding COVID-19. Science Communication, 44(2), 223–239.
Kitcher, P. (2011). Science in a democratic society. Prometheus Books.
Koch, S. (2020). Responsible research, inequality in science and epistemic injustice: An attempt to open up thinking about inclusiveness in the context of RI/RRI. Journal of Responsible Innovation, 7(3), 672–679.
Ladds, E., Rushforth, A., Wieringa, S., Taylor, S., Rayner, C., Husain, L., & Greenhalgh, T. (2020). Persistent symptoms after Covid-19: Qualitative study of 114 “long Covid” patients and draft quality principles for services. BMC health services research, 20(1), 1–13.
Lakatos, I. (1976). Proofs and refutations. Cambridge University Press.
Levy, N. (2022). Bad Beliefs. Oxford University Press.
Lezaun, J., & Soneryd, L. (2007). Consulting citizens: Technologies of elicitation and the mobility of publics. Public Understanding of Science, 16, 279–297.
Liu, K. A., & Dipietro Mager, N. A. (2016). Women’s involvement in clinical trials: Historical perspective and future implications. Pharmacy Practice (Granada), 14(1), 1–9.
Longino, H. (1990). Science as social knowledge. Values and objectivity in scientific inquiry. Princeton University Press.
Mäki, U. (2013). On a paradox of truth, or how not to obscure the issue of whether explanatory models can be true. Journal of Economic Methodology, 20(3), 268–279.
Martini, C., & Andreoletti, M. (2021). Genuine versus bogus scientific controversies: The case of statins. History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences, 43(4), 1–23.
Maxim, L., Mansier, P., & Grabar, N. (2013). Public reception of scientific uncertainty in the endocrine disrupter controversy: The case of male fertility. Journal of Risk Research, 16(6), 677–695.
Mede, N. G., & Schäfer, M. S. (2020). Science-related populism: Conceptualizing populist demands toward science. Public Understanding of Science, 29(5), 473–491.
Mejlgaard, N., & Ravn, T. (2016). Monitoring the evolution and benefits of responsible research and innovation (MoRRI). Analytical report on the dimension of citizen engagement and participation of societal actors in research and innovation. In International Conference on Science and Technology Indicators.
Mejlgaard, N., Woolley, R., Bloch, C., Bührer, S., Griessler, E., Jäger, A., Lindner, R., et al. (2018). Europe’s plans for responsible science. Science, 361(6404), 761–762.
Mill, J. S. (1999). On liberty. Broadview Press.
Nguyen, C. T. (2020). Echo chambers and epistemic bubbles. Episteme, 17, 141–161.
Nguyen, A., & Catalan, D. (2020). Digital mis/disinformation and public engagement with health and science controversies: Fresh perspectives from Covid-19. Media and Communication, 8(2), 323–328.
Nichols, T. M. (2017). The death of expertise: The campaign against established knowledge and why it matters. Oxford University Press.
Novitzky, P., Bernstein, M. J., Blok, V., Braun, R., Chan, T. T., Lamers, W., Loeber, A., Meijer, I., Lindner, R., & Griessler, E. (2020). Improve alignment of research policy and societal values. Science, 369(6499), 39–41.
O’Connor, C., & Weatherall, J. (2019). The misinformation age. Yale University Press.
Ottinger, G. (2010). Buckets of resistance: Standards and the effectiveness of citizen science. Science Technology & Human Values, 35(2), 244–270.
Owen, R., Macnaghten, P., & Stilgoe, J. (2012). Responsible research and innovation: From science in society to science for society, with society. Science and public policy, 39(6), 751–760.
Paglieri, F., & Castelfranchi, C. (2010). Why argue? towards a cost–benefit analysis of argumentation. Argument & Computation, 1, 71–91.
PAS2019 (2020). Public attitudes to science 2019. Main report.
PE2020 (2015). Public engagement innovations – catalogue of PE initiatives, deliverable 1.2.
PE2020 (2017). Public engagement innovations for horizon 2020 final progress report, Deliverable 6.1 (January 2017).
Rask, M. (2013). The tragedy of citizen deliberation: Two cases of participatory technology assessment. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 25(1), 39–55.
Rask, M., Mačiukaitė-Žvinienė, S., Tauginienė, L., Dikčius, V., Matschoss, K., & Aarrevaara, T. (2018). Public participation, science and society: Tools for dynamic and responsible governance of research and innovation. Taylor & Francis. & L. d’Andrea.
Retzbach, A., & Maier, M. (2015). Communicating scientific uncertainty: Media effects on public engagement with science. Communication Research, 42(3), 429–456.
Robertson, E., Reeve, K. S., Niedzwiedz, C. L., Moore, J., Blake, M., Green, M., Katikireddi, V., S., & Benzeval, M. J. (2021). Predictors of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in the UK household longitudinal study. Brain behavior and immunity, 94, 41–50.
Roloff, M. (2015). Social exchange theories. International Encyclopedia of Interpersonal Communication. Wiley.
Sanders, E. B. N., & Westerlund, B. (2011). Experience, exploring and experimenting in and with co-design spaces. In: Proceedings of NORDES’11, Helsinki (1–5).
Scheufele, D. A. (2011). Modern citizenship or policy dead end? Evaluating the need for public participation in science policy making, and why public meetings may not be the answer. Paper #R-34. Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy Research Paper Series.
Shen, S. C., & Dubey, V. (2019). Addressing vaccine hesitancy: Clinical guidance for primary care physicians working with parents. Canadian family physician Medecin de famille canadien, 65(3), 175–181.
Small, B., & Mallon, M. (2007). Science, society, ethics, and trust: Scientists’ reflections on the commercialization and democratization of science. International Studies of Management & Organization, 37(1), 103–124.
Stilgoe, J., Owen, R., & Macnaghten, P. (2013). Developing a framework for responsible innovation. Research Policy, 42, 1568–1580.
Stilgoe, J., Lock, S. J., & Wilsdon, J. (2014). Why should we promote public engagement with science?. Public understanding of science, 23(1), 4–15.
Von Schomberg, R. (2013). A vision of responsible innovation. In R. Owen, M. Heintz, & J. Bessant (Eds.), Responsible Innovation. John Wiley.
Talisse, R. (2019). Overdoing democracy. Oxford University Press.
The Lancet Infectious Diseases. (2019). Trust issues. The Lancet Infectious Diseases, 19(4), 339. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1473-3099(19)30128-8
Thorpe, C., & Gregory, J. (2010). Producing the post-Fordist public: The political economy of public engagement with science. Science as Culture, 19(3), 273–301.
World Health Organization (2021). Expanding our understanding of post COVID-19 condition: Report of a WHO webinar, 9 February 2021.
Washington, H. A. (2006). Medical apartheid: The dark history of medical experimentation on black Americans from colonial times to the present. Harlem Moon.
Weingart, P., Joubert, M., & Connoway, K. (2021). Public engagement with science—Origins, motives and impact in academic literature and science policy.PLOS ONE, 16(7), e0254201.
Wellcome Monitor (2020). Wellcome monitor 2020: Covid-19 study. August 2020 https://cms.wellcome.org/sites/default/files/wellcome-monitor-2020-covid-19-report.pdf
Wellcome Monitor (2021). Wellcome monitor 2020: How the British public engage with health research. https://wellcome.org/reports/wellcome-monitor-2020-covid-19-study
Williams, S. N., & Dienes, K. A. (2021). Public attitudes to COVID-19 vaccines. A qualitative study. medRxiv (PREPRINT).
Wilson, S. L., & Wiysonge, C. (2020). Social media and vaccine hesitancy. BMJ Global Health, 5(10), e004206. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjgh-2020-004206
World Health Organization (2021). Expanding our understanding of post COVID-19 condition: Report of a WHO webinar, 9 February 2021.
Wu, T. (2016). The attention merchants. Penguin Random House.
Wynne, B. (2006). Public engagement as a means of restoring public trust in science: Hitting the notes, but missing the music?. Public Health Genomics, 9(3), 211–220.
Zollman, K. (2013). Network epistemology: communication in epistemic communities. Philosophy Compass, 8, 15–27.