Public Engagement as a Means of Restoring Public Trust in Science – Hitting the Notes, but Missing the Music?
Abstract
This paper analyses the recent widespread moves to ‘restore’ public trust in science by developing an avowedly two-way, public dialogue with science initiatives. Noting how previously discredited and supposedly abandoned public deficit explanations of ‘mistrust’ have actually been continually reinvented, it argues that this is a symptom of a continuing failure of scientific and policy institutions to place their own science-policy institutional culture into the frame of dialogue, as possible contributory cause of the public mistrust problem.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Contemporary research indicates that the deficit model still prevails and persists in interpreting public resistance to science-backed policy.
“contemporary research by Brunk (2006) and Wynne (2006), among others, indicate that the deficit model still prevails and persists in interpreting public resistance to science-backed policy.”
From Public Misunderstanding of Science? Reframing the Problem of Vaccine Hesitancy (2016) · cites this paper as Wynne 2006
Cites
Taylor, C. (1995) · Multiculturalism · doi:10.1515/9781400821402-004 · Cited by 2,452 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Developing a framework for responsible innovation
Stilgoe, J., Owen, R., & Macnaghten, P. (2013) · Research Policy · doi:10.1016/j.respol.2013.05.008 · Cited by 3,184 · see citing works
Using narratives and storytelling to communicate science with nonexpert audiences
Dahlstrom, M. F. (2014) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1320645111 · Cited by 1,159 · see citing works
The relationship between trust in AI and trustworthy machine learning technologies
Toreini, E., Aitken, M., Coopamootoo, K., Elliott, K., Zelaya, C. G., & van Moorsel, A. (2020) · Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency · doi:10.1145/3351095.3372834 · Cited by 296 · see citing works
Public Misunderstanding of Science? Reframing the Problem of Vaccine Hesitancy
Goldenberg, M. J. (2016) · Perspectives on Science · doi:10.1162/posc_a_00223 · Cited by 218 · see citing works
Innovating public engagement and patient involvement through strategic collaboration and practice
Holmes, L., Cresswell, K., Williams, S., Parsons, S., Keane, A., Wilson, C., Islam, S., Joseph, O., Miah, J., Robinson, E., et al. (2019) · Research Involvement and Engagement · doi:10.1186/s40900-019-0160-4 · Cited by 110 · see citing works
The Sanction of Authority: Promoting Public Trust in AI
Knowles, B., & Richards, J. T. (2021) · Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency · doi:10.1145/3442188.3445890 · Cited by 86 · see citing works
- Authors
- Wynne, B.
- Affiliations
- Lancaster University (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Wynne, Brian
- ORCID
- Wynne, Brian
- Venue
- Public Health Genomics
- Publisher
- S. Karger AG
- Published
- 2006
- Volume
- 9
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 211-220
- ISSN
- 1422-2795 (ISSN-L)
- 1662-4246
- 1662-8063
- OpenAlex
- W1983347960
- Cited by
- 972
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 30 · 2025: 48 · 2024: 56 · 2023: 64 · 2022: 71 · 2021: 54 · 2020: 51 · 2019: 69 · 2018: 59 · 2017: 44 · 2016: 61 · 2015: 57 · 2014: 58 · 2013: 56 · 2012: 39
- FWCI
- 76.70
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Public Health Genomics (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Economic and Social Research Council (RES-145-28-1003-A)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Risk Perception and Management
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Research, Science, and Academia
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Science and Science Education
- Keywords
- public trust in science, citizen participation, science-policy interface, science communication, institutional culture, science policy
- MeSH terms
- Attitude, Community Participation, Genetic Engineering, Humans, Policy Making, Public Opinion, Public Policy, Bioethical Issues, Trust, Biomedical Research
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
