Participation and science governance


This issue aims to provide a platform for researchers to address communication at the intersection of science and politics from different angles, and to reduce the contingency of science-policy communication in its various dimensions while spurring investigations into the science-policy interface.


By exploring motives that drive #scicomm, we point out that political motives are the major driving force behind most #scicomm programmes, with the result that educational and promotional objectives are blurred and science communication activities are rarely evaluated meaningfully.


How different segments of the public formulate opinions on the role they think STI should play in Japanese society toward 2030? Results indicate that public opinions don’t completely overlap with officials' opinions, and “open and appropriate” visions could well be incorporated into official views.


Authors show how problematic precedents set by the 1975 Asilomar Conference emerge in contemporary discussions on CRISPR, and a recent controversy on field trial releases of genetically modified mosquitoes, and how they undermine efforts to engage publics in decisions in science-policy interface.


Investigation on how these two India and Europe have envisioned the concept of innovation, particularly in studying and comparing how they have focused on people, both as final beneficiaries (and thus principal legitimisers) of policy actions, and as actors themselves in the innovation process.


Focusing on a recent standard (BS ISO 27500:2016 “The human-centred organisation”) which encourages the adoption of a sociotechnical systems perspective across a wide range of businesses, organizations and ventures, authors discuss its potential application to virtual citizen science.


“Priest, Goodwin and Dahlstrom's [2018] edited collection, ‘Ethics and Practice in Science Communication’, is a significant step forwards in allowing for contemporary reflection on the ethical considerations currently influencing the field.”


Inclusive participation and deliberative democracy are essential to innovation. We suggest how and why Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) should stay and be strengthened through its mainstreaming within Horizon Europe, the future FP for European Research and Innovation (2021–2027).


The aim of this paper is the development of an evaluation tool (composed of 34 indicators structured into 6 interrelated criteria) scientifically validated by the Delphi method that permits the study of Internet usage and its effectiveness for encouraging public engagement in the scientific process.


Subscribe to Participation and science governance