Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Public Understanding of Science
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
0963662509104723v1
18/5/559    most recent
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Kurath, M.
Right arrow Articles by Gisler, P.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Informing, involving or engaging? Science communication, in the ages of atom-, bio- and nanotechnology

Monika Kurath

Program for Science Studies, University of Basel and Collegium Helveticum, ETH and University of Zurich, Switzerland, monika.kurath{at}collegium.ethz.ch

Priska Gisler

Collegium Helveticum, ETH and University of Zurich, Switzerland

Science communication has shifted considerably in Europe over the last decades. Three technology controversies on atoms, genes, and nanoscale sciences and nanotechnologies (NST) turned the style of communication from one-way information, participation and dialogues to the idea of an early and more democratic engagement of the public. Analyzing science communication developing over the three controversies, this article shows that what happened in one technology field fed forward to and contributed to shaping the subsequent field and that communication was initiated at a progressively earlier stage of technology development. The article concludes with an empirical analysis of six public engagement projects in NST, saying that the shift towards more democratic engagement of the public hasn’t been as profound and complete as has been thought. This is particularly due to the continuing adoption of a simplistic contrast structure that opposes science and the public as two self-contained, antagonistic social entities.

Key Words: biotechnology • nanotechnology • nuclear technology • public engagement • PUS • science communication • upstream engagement

This version was published on September 1, 2009

Public Understanding of Science, Vol. 18, No. 5, 559-573 (2009)
DOI: 10.1177/0963662509104723
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?