In New Zealand, the use of genetic technologies for environmental and conservation purposes is a highly contested issue yet genetic technologies, including RNAi and gene drives may offer technological advances for protecting New Zealand's vulnerable biodiversity. This context makes discussions on the use of gene technology for environmental purposes both challenging and necessary. Such discussions can be difficult, not simply because they are often contested, but also because people find the topic complicated, the language alien and overly scientific. This research, which sits at the intersection of science and publics, is part of a large national dialogue which aimed to better understand the public's thoughts and feelings around the use of genetic technologies for environmental or conservation purposes. To assist people to feel comfortable at the beginning of the dialogue sessions, we designed purposeful games before engaging in a facilitated conversation. These games are based on heritage games that most people are familiar with but altered to address several issues relevant to genetic technologies in an environmental context. This article provides an insight into how to design and use purposeful games to foster epistemic confidence in non-scientists. It acts as a helpful guide for others working in contested spaces where there is a need to effectively facilitate engagement of non-scientists in important science-society discussions.

There is a gap between the discipline of economics and the public it is supposedly about and for. This gap is reminiscent of the divide that led to movements for the public understanding of and public engagement with the natural sciences. It is a gap in knowledge, trust, and opinions, but most of all it is a gap in engagement. In this paper we ask: What do we need to think about ― and what do we need to do ― in order to bring economics and its public into closer dialogue? At stake is engaged, critical democracy. We turn to the fields of public understanding of science and science studies for our approach, finding three themes of particular relevance: understanding, expertise, and audience. We then discuss participatory budgeting (PB) as an example of fertile ground for engagement. We argue that with an economic-engagement focus, activities such as PB could be extended into the public-economics gap and provide avenues for an economic equivalent of participatory science: a form of participatory economics.