Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Governance of Biomedical Science (1): Trust and the Public Understanding of Science

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The Biomedical Sciences in Society

  • 169 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter is the first of two chapters that explore questions surrounding the building of a coherent, effective, and robust governance framework for the conduct of biomedical science research and innovation in the UK. It considers this research in terms of the governance guiding principles of social responsibility, accountability, and transparency. The chapter moves onto an assessment of the public understanding of the risks associated with innovations in bioscience and questions of public trust in the science itself. It then examines the social response to epidemics and bio-disasters and the role of government in maintaining public confidence in biomedical science innovation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    The Wellcome Global Monitor Survey (2018) posed the following question about trust in science and scientists: (a) How much do you trust scientists in this country? (b) In general, how much do you trust scientists to find out accurate information about the world? (c) How much do you trust scientists working in universities in this country to do their work with the intention of benefiting the public? (d) How much do you trust scientists working in universities in this country to be open and honest about who is paying for their work? (e) How much do you trust scientists working for companies in this country to do their work with the intention of benefiting the public?

Bibliography

  • Barnes, B., & Dupré, J. (2008). Genomes and What to Make of Them. London: University of Chicago Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Bauer, M. (2009a). Editorial. The Public Understanding of Science, 18(4), 378–382.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bauer, M. (2009b). The Evolution of Public Understanding of Science—Discourse and Comparative Evidence. Science, Technology and Society, 14(2), 221–240.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beck, U. (1992). Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bodmer Report. (1985). The Public Understanding of Science. London: The Royal Society. Retrieved September 2017, from https://royalsociety.org/~/media/Royal_Society_Content/policy/publications/1985/10700.pdf.

  • Brown, M. (2009). Science in Democracy: Expertise, Institutions, and Representation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Bucchi, M., & Trench, B. (2016). Science Communication and Science in Society: A Conceptual Review in Ten Keywords. Technoscienza, 7(2), 151–168.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, S. (1972). Folk Devils and Moral Panics. London MacGibbon and Kee.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, S. (1999). Moral Panics and Folk Concepts. Paedagogica Historica, 35(3), 585–591.

    Google Scholar 

  • Corporate Watch. (2005). Newsletter, 21. Retrieved from https://corporatewatch.org/content/newsletter-21-3-its-official-no-dark-machiavellian-conspiracy-new-nuclear-power.

  • Davies, J. (2011). Challenging Governance Theory. Bristol: Policy Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Department of Business, Energy and Industrial Energy. (2018). The Allocation of Funding for Research and Innovation. London: BEIS.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dowie, J. (1999). Communication for Better Decisions: Not About ‘Risk’. Health, Risk & Society, 1, 41–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dowie, J. (2000). A Risky Decision: Managing without Risk. Risk Management: An International Journal, 2, 51–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Engdahl, E., & Lidskog, R. (2014). Risk, Communication and Trust: Towards an Emotional Understanding of Risk. The Public Understanding of Science, 23(6), 703–717.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • European Commission. (2009). Global Governance of Science—Report of the Expert Group on Global Governance of Science. EUR 23616 EN. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission. (2014). Special Eurobarometer 419—Public Perceptions of Science, Research and Innovation. Brussels: European Commission.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gee, D. (2013). More or Less Precaution? Late Lessons from Early Warnings: Science, Precaution, Innovation. Copenhagen: European Environment Agency.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gillott, J. (2014). Bioscience, Governance and Politics. Basingstoke: Palgrave.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Gilman, S. (2010). The Art of Medicine: Moral Panic and Pandemics. The Lancet, 375, 1866–1867.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gray, A. (2004). Governing Medicine: An Introduction. In A. Gray & S. Harrison (Eds.), Governing Medicine: Theory and Practice (pp. 5–20). Maidnhead: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Green, J. (2009). Is It Time for the Sociology of Health to Abandon ‘Risk’? Health, Risk and Society, 11(6), 493–508.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gregory, J. (2001). Public Understanding of Science: Lessons from the UK Experience. SciDevnet. Retrieved September 2016, from http://www.scidev.net/global/communication/feature/public-understanding-of-science-lessons-from-the.html.

  • House of Lords. (2000). Select Committee on Science and Technology, Third Report—Science and Society. Retrieved from http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199900/ldselect/ldsctech/38/3801.htm.

  • Irwin, A., & Wynne, B. (1996). Misunderstanding Science? The Public Reconstruction of Science and Technology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, R., & Wilsdon, J. (2018). The Biomedical Bubble: Why UK Research and Innovation Needs a Greater Diversity of Priorities, Politics, Places and People. London: NESTA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luhmann, N. (1979). Trust and Power. Chichester: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luhmann, N. (2000). Familiarity, Confidence, Trust: Problems and Alternatives. In G. Diego (Ed.), Trust: Making and Breaking Cooperative Relations. Oxford: University of Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • NHS. (2019). Childhood Vaccination Coverage Statistics—England: 2019–20. https://digital.nhs.uk/data-and-information/publications/statistical/nhs-immunisationstatistics/england---2019-20.

  • Patterson, M., & Johnson, J. (2012). Theorizing the Obesity Epidemic: Health Crisis, Moral Panic and Emerging Hybrids. Social Theory & Health, 10, 265–291.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Philips, N. L. (2000). The BSE inquiry. Volume 1, Findings and Conclusions. London: Stationary Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • Research England. (2020). Annual Funding Allocations 2019–20. Retrieved January 2020, from https://re.ukri.org/finance/annual-funding-allocations/annual-funding-allocations-2019-20/.

  • Rose, S. (2019, July 18). Pissing in the Snow. London Review of Books, 41(14).

    Google Scholar 

  • Simmel, G. (1990). The Philosophy of Money. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sun, S., Lin, D., & Operario, D. (2020). Need for a Population Health Approach to Understand and Address Psychosocial Consequences of COVID-19. Psychological Trauma: Theory, Research, Practice, and Policy, 12(S1), S25–S27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Temperton, J. (2016). Inside Sellafield: How the UK’s Most Dangerous Nuclear Site Is Cleaning Up Its Act. Wired, 17 September 2016.

    Google Scholar 

  • UK Clinical Research Collaboration—UKCRC. (2015). UK Health Research Analysis 2014. London: UKCRC.

    Google Scholar 

  • UK Research and Innovation—UKRI. (2019). Annual Report and Accounts 2018–19. HC207. Swindon: UKRI.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ungar, S. (2016). Is This One It? Viral Moral Panics. In C. Krinsky (Ed.), The Ashgate Research Companion to Moral Panics (pp. 349–366). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wellcome Trust. (2018). Wellcome Global Monitor 2018. Retrieved January 2020, from https://wellcome.ac.uk/reports/wellcome-global-monitor/2018.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. St Georges, University of London, London, UK

    Iain Crinson

Authors
  1. Iain Crinson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Iain Crinson .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Crinson, I. (2021). The Governance of Biomedical Science (1): Trust and the Public Understanding of Science. In: The Biomedical Sciences in Society. Palgrave Macmillan, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-9523-3_9

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-9523-3_9

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Singapore

  • Print ISBN: 978-981-15-9522-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-981-15-9523-3

  • eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation