"

From 2012.igem.org

Contents 1 Communication Science 1.1 Proposal: What can we learn from the interactions between iGEM teams and the public? 1.2 A first impression of the Discovery Festival 1.2.1 Bibliography

Communication Science

By: Paulien Poelarends

Proposal: What can we learn from the interactions between iGEM teams and the public?

Since the beginning of this century the public is more and more involved in the innovation of emerging technologies. Organisations organise for example public debates, science cafés and focus groups (Veen, te Molder, Gremmen, & van Woerkum, 2012). Public engagement is seen as a way to increase trust in science (Dijkstra & Gutteling, 2012) and as a way to decrease public’s exaggerated hopes and fears of emerging technologies like synthetic biology (Schmidt et al., 2009). To improve the interaction between scientists and the public several studies are conducted to understand how scientists see the relation with the public. Results show that scientists still talk about one-way communication, not about dialogues (Cook, Pieri, & Robbins, 2004; Davies, 2008). Studies also show that scientists appreciate the opinion of non-scientists but still prioritize scientific information (Mogendorff, te Molder, Gremmen, & van Woerkum, 2012; Motion & Doolin, 2007).

Scientists are concerned about this prioritization and argue that the concerns of the public about impacts of the emerging technologies are not discussed when talking about the technology. There is only attention for the objective, neutral and factual or “hard” impacts (Swierstra & te Molder, 2012).

Other studies show that scientists and experts shift their identity when interacting with the public, thus displaying personal involvement (Padmos, Mazeland, & Te Molder, 2006). Other studies show that scientists present themselves as ordinary persons first before distancing themselves by which they show their superiority over non-experts (Dyer & Keller-Cohen, 2000).

For my thesis I will analyse interactions between iGEM team members and the public. I will analyse interactions during the Discovery festival, the Transnatural festival and the Meeting of Young Minds during the iGEM Jamboree. In order to get a better understanding of the interaction between scientists and the public. Discursive psychology will be used for the analysis. Discursive psychology tries to understand which actions are performed in interactions and is able to identify obstacles in these interactions (Veen et al., 2012).

The aim of my research is to get a better understanding of how it is possible that the concerns of the public are not discussed during interactions. I will try to find out which actions in talk are responsible for this. My main focus will be on the way identities are used in interactions and what influence this has on concerns and impacts discussed. With my thesis I want to create a better understanding of the influence of actions in talk on topics discussed in interactions between scientists and the public to improve public engagement activities. I will conduct this research for my master thesis, part of the master Applied Communication Science. During my research I am supervised by Prof. dr. H.F.M. te Molder. Are you curious about my results or would you like to have more information? Please let me know: paulien.poelarends@wur.nl or twitter: @ppoelarends

A first impression of the Discovery Festival

What happened during the interactions between iGEM and the public? I was really amazed about the fluent interaction, the fun everybody had and the enthusiasm of the festival visitors. Below are my first impressions as an observer of iGEM Wageningen at Discovery Festival Rotterdam. As I did not start analyzing my data yet, it is just a first impression of the visitors, iGEM Wageningen and the conversations between the iGEM team and visitors.

The Discovery Festival visitors were wildly enthusiastic about the simulation of the SynBio Experience created by iGEM. The visitors, aged 20-30 years old, were waiting in big lines to take a tour in the lab and to listen curiously and critically to the stories of the iGEM team members.

Seven iGEM team members from Wageningen guided the visitors in the simulated lab. They all told an enthusiastic story in which they explained what happens in a lab and answered all kinds of questions asked by the visitors. Interestingly, most of the visitors were of the same age as the iGEM team members and only the lab coat created a visual difference between visitors and the iGEM team.

During the simulation of the SynBio Experience, the iGEM team members created an informal atmosphere. iGEM team members asked many questions to the visitors. The visitors also asked many questions to the iGEM team members which created an open conversation. Not only serious questions were addressed but there was also enough space for jokes and other kinds of personal questions. But although many questions were asked by the public, hardly any concerns were raised about the dangers of synthetic biology. This is an interesting phenomenon and I will focus on it during my research. What is going on in the conversations? Why is there enough space for asking questions but are there hardly questions about ethical issues and social concerns? Is it the setting, the informal atmosphere or do the iGEM team members avoid these “ethical talks”? Or is the public visiting Discovery Festival not interested in these issues? I hope to find an answer to these questions in the coming months.

For now I can only say that the visitors that spoke with iGEM Wageningen had a positive experience with science, something which I think will help to create a better relationship between science and society.

Bibliography

• Cook, G., Pieri, E., & Robbins, P. T. (2004). ‘The Scientists Think and the Public Feels’: Expert Perceptions of the Discourse of GM Food. Discourse & Society, 15(4).

• Davies, S. R. (2008). Constructing communication: Talking to scientists about talking to the public. Science Communication, 29(4), 413-434. doi: 10.1177/1075547009316222

• Dijkstra, A. M., & Gutteling, J. M. (2012). Communicative Aspects of the Public-Science Relationship Explored: Results of Focus Group Discussions About Biotechnology and Genomics. Science Communication, 34(3), 363-391. doi: Doi 10.1177/1075547011417894

• Dyer, J., & Keller-Cohen, D. (2000). The Discursive Construction of Professional Self Through Narratives of Personal Experience. Discourse Studies, 2(3), 283-304.

• Mogendorff, K., te Molder, H., Gremmen, B., & van Woerkum, C. (2012). “Everyone May Think Whatever They Like, but Scientists . . .”: Or How and to What End Plant Scientists Manage the Science-Society Relationship. Science Communication(March 2012), 1-25.

• Motion, J., & Doolin, B. (2007). Out of the laboratory: scientists' discursive practices in their encounters with activists. Discourse Studies, 9(1), 63-85. doi: Doi 10.1177/1461445606072110

• Padmos, H., Mazeland, H., & Te Molder, H. (2006). On doing being personal: Citizen talk as an identity-suspending device in public debates on GMOs. In H. Hausendorf & A. Bora (Eds.), Analysing Citizenship Talk: Social Positioning in Political and Legal Decision-making Procedures (pp. 276-295). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

• Schmidt, M., Ganguli-Mitra, A., Torgersen, H., Kelle, A., Deplazes, A., & Biller-Andorno, N. (2009). A priority paper for the societal and ethical aspects of synthetic biology. Systems and Synthetic Biology 3, 3-7.

• Swierstra, T., & te Molder, H. F. M. (2012). Risk and Soft Impacts. In S. Roeser, R. Hillerbrand, P. Sandin & M. Peterson (Eds.), Handbook of Risk Theory. 2012: Springer Science+Business Media B.V.

• Veen, M., te Molder, H., Gremmen, B., & van Woerkum, C. (2012). Competing Agendas in Upstream Engagement Meetings Between Celiac Disease Experts and Patients. Science Communication, 34(4), 460-486. doi: Doi 10.1177/1075547011427975