This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in Web of Science Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Web of Science (3) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Stilgoe, J. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

The (co-)production of public uncertainty: UK scientific advice on mobile phone health risks

Demos, jack.stilgoe{at}demos.co.uk

UK scientific advice on the possible health risks of mobile phones has embraced (or seems to be embracing) broader engagement with interested non-experts. This paper explains the context of lost credibility that made such a development necessary, and the implications of greater engagement for the construction (and expert control) of "public concern." I narrate how scientific advice matured from an approach based on compliance with guidelines to a style of "public science" in which issues such as trust and democracy were intertwined with scientific risk assessment. This paper develops existing conceptions of the "public understanding of science" with an explanation based around the co-production of scientific and social order. Using a narrative drawn from a series of in-depth interviews with scientists and policymakers, I explain how expert reformulation of the state of scientific uncertainty within a public controversy reveals constructions of "The Public," and the desired extent of their engagement. Constructions of the public changed at the same time as a construction of uncertainty as solely an expert concern was molded into a state of politically workable public uncertainty. This paper demonstrates how publics can be constructed as instruments of credible policymaking, and suggests the potential for public alienation if non-experts feel they have not been fairly represented.

Public Understanding of Science, Vol. 16, No. 1, 45-61 (2007)
DOI: 10.1177/0963662506059262


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				J. Park, H. Jeon, and R. A. Logan The Korean press and Hwang's fraud Public Understanding of Science, November 1, 2009; 18(6): 653 - 669. [Abstract] [PDF]

				A. Moore and J. Stilgoe Experts and Anecdotes: The Role of ''Anecdotal Evidence'' in Public Scientific Controversies Science Technology Human Values, September 1, 2009; 34(5): 654 - 677. [Abstract] [PDF]

				S. R. Davies Constructing Communication: Talking to Scientists About Talking to the Public Science Communication, June 1, 2008; 29(4): 413 - 434. [Abstract] [PDF]

				L. Soneryd Deliberations on the Unknown, the Unsensed, and the Unsayable?: Public Protests and the Development of Third-Generation Mobile Phones in Sweden Science Technology Human Values, May 1, 2007; 32(3): 287 - 314. [Abstract] [PDF]

				K. Burningham, J. Barnett, A. Carr, R. Clift, and W. Wehrmeyer Industrial constructions of publics and public knowledge: a qualitative investigation of practice in the UK chemicals industry Public Understanding of Science, January 1, 2007; 16(1): 23 - 43. [Abstract] [PDF]