562503

research-article2015
JOS0010.1177/1440783314562503Journal of SociologyMarks and Russell

Article
Journal of Sociology

Public engagement
2015, Vol. 51(1) 97­–115
© The Author(s) 2015
Reprints and permissions:
in biosciences and sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1440783314562503
biotechnologies: Reflections jos.sagepub.com

on the role of sociology and

STS

Nicola J. Marks
Science and Technology Studies program, University of Wollongong, Australia

A. Wendy Russell
Centre for the Public Awareness of Science, Australian National University and Director, Double Arrow
Consulting, Canberra, Australia

Abstract
Approaches to public engagement in biosciences and biotechnologies have been informed by
work done by sociologists and science and technology studies (STS) scholars, in particular their
critiques of traditional elitist and technocratic approaches to science policy. In this article, we
analyse one attempt at institutionalising public engagement in Australia, and focus on points
of tension between different actors. We explore the roles of social scientists in policy and in
public engagement, and the potential for opening up discussions and decision-making about the
biosciences and biotechnologies. We reflect on the difficulties for social scientists in maintaining a
critical yet constructive voice and draw attention to care as a possible ethico-political commitment
and practice that may create opportunities and spaces for improving public engagement and
policy making.

Keywords
care as practice, ethics of care, public engagement in science, science and technology studies,
science policy, Science and Technology Engagement Pathways (STEP)

Corresponding author:
Nicola J. Marks, Science and Technology Studies, School of Humanities and Social Inquiry, Faculty of Law,
Humanities and the Arts, University of Wollongong, New South Wales 2522, Australia.
Email: nicolam@uow.edu.au
98 Journal of Sociology 51(1)

Introduction: towards public engagement in biosciences

and emerging technologies
The biosciences and biotechnologies, which come under the umbrella of bio-knowledge,
bring into being a range of entities, such as plants genetically modified to contain genes
from animals, human cells derived from embryos and grown in animal cell cultures,
nano-scale structures to deliver cancer drugs into the body, or living organisms made-
to-order by synthetic biologists. They combine technical and intellectual, but also social
and political work (for instance to construct a new area of biosciences as innovative but
not socially disruptive; see Jasanoff, 2005). They reconfigure ‘life itself’ (Rose, 2007)
and transform norms and understandings of socio-technical relations (e.g. Bowker and
Star, 1999; Callon and Rabeharisoa, 2008; Epstein, 1996; Kowal, 2013; Thompson,
2005; Van der Ploeg, 2001; Waldby, 2002). Some areas of bio-knowledge become nor-
malised (temporarily stabilised and accepted), but others continue to create visible public
disquiet. Public disquiet has also been associated, over a number of decades, with the
privatisation and commercialisation of bio-knowledge. This has complicated the govern-
ance of these areas and the role of governments (and researchers) in variously building
capacity for, supporting and regulating emerging biosciences and biotechnologies
(Krimsky, 2004).
Science and technology studies (STS) scholars have for decades been highlighting the
importance of understanding science and technology, including the biosciences and bio-
technologies, in their complex, multiple and changing social, political and cultural con-
texts.1 They have shown that there are multiple forms of expertise and knowledge
relevant to science and technology and its governance, beyond that of certified technical
expertise (Collins and Evans, 2002; Irwin and Wynne, 1996; Wynne, 1996). Many have
advocated a range of participatory forms of public engagement2 in science and demo-
cratic modes of science policy making to promote institutional reflexivity and perhaps
increased trust in science (e.g. Durant, 1999; Irwin, 2001; Jasanoff, 2003; Parry et al.,
2012; Schibeci and Harwood, 2007; Wynne, 1996).
Partly because of continued public concern towards some areas of the biosciences,
and partly because of the above-mentioned calls for democratisation, there have been
tentative shifts by science and policy institutions towards inclusive public engagement in
science and science governance. In some instances, STS scholars have been invited into
the ‘policy room(s)’ (Nowotny, 2007; Webster, 2007) to advise on future directions for
science and technology and give advice on public engagement. Webster (2007: 459) has
called for a furthering of this ‘serviceable STS’ which addresses some of the needs of
policy makers and can constructively, yet still critically, contribute to science policy.
This in many ways parallels the call made by Burawoy for ‘public sociology’ that draws
on reflexive knowledge which ‘interrogates the value premises of society as well as our
profession’ (2005: 269) in order to serve civil society.
The difficulties encountered by both serviceable STS and public sociology high-
light the complexities in attempting to engage with diverse sections of society (includ-
ing policy makers) (Burawoy, 2009; Burchell, 2009; Calvert and Martin, 2009; Lynch,
2009; Lynch and Cole, 2005; Wynne, 2007). In particular, when critiquing the status
quo and making normative claims about science and society, there is a tension in
Marks and Russell 99

maintaining a critical voice as well as a pragmatic approach that enables future invita-
tions back into policy rooms.3 This has led Latour (2004) to argue that critique has
‘run out of steam’. There is a need, then, to examine public sociology/serviceable STS
in practice and reflect on the best way sociology and STS can fruitfully contribute to
science policy and to improved science–society relations more broadly, without los-
ing its identity and critical edge.
We suggest that an approach informed by STS can contribute to what Petersen (2013)
calls a ‘normative sociology of bio-knowledge’, one that takes us beyond ethical princi-
plism and a focus on ethical, legal and social impacts (ELSI); both of these marginalise
broader ethical and socio-political issues in policy and governance (Ferrari and
Nordmann, 2010; Williams, 2006). Petersen puts forward an approach based on the soci-
ology of human rights, which brings into focus global injustice and how it can play out
in particular sites. We argue that the concept of ‘care’ can be a valuable addition (espe-
cially as developed by Mol, 2008; Puig de la Bellacasa, 2011, further discussed below).
We consider ways in which caring can contribute to the delicate operation of ‘opening
up’ (Stirling, 2008) decisions and discussions about the biosciences and biotechnologies,
making it possible to ask broader questions about the assumptions underpinning them.

Case study and approach

We examine the development of a best practice framework for public engagement in sci-
ence and technology: Science and Technology Engagement Pathways (STEP). STEP
arose from the work of a public awareness and community engagement (PACE) program
under the National Enabling Technologies Strategy (NETS), which ran from 2009 to
2013. The latter was set up and funded by the Australian government, within its innova-
tion portfolio. STEP was co-designed by stakeholders and members of the public4 in a
range of workshops: separate stakeholder workshops with industry, government (includ-
ing other relevant departments and agencies) and researchers (including social scientists,
natural scientists and engagement practitioners); a public workshop involving 45 ‘inno-
cent’ citizens (Irwin, 2001); and a multi-stakeholder forum (including publics) from
which the STEP framework was developed (later refined through online discussion). The
framework was implemented and tested in a series of engagement forums, called ‘STEP
into the Future’, held in different locations around the country (focused on different top-
ics, e.g. synthetic biology, nanotechnology). The NETS program ended in 2013 and nei-
ther NETS nor STEP was re-funded.5
We present a reflexive sociological study of STEP by two people involved in the pro-
cess. Russell managed STEP’s development while employed as a public servant under
NETS. She was responsible for the design and organisation of the various engagements,
coordination of the co-design process, and implementation of STEP in ‘STEP into the
Future’. She drew on her research interests in STS and Technology Assessment, and was
also motivated by her interest in transdisciplinary inquiry. Marks was invited to partici-
pate as an academic social scientist with expertise in biotechnology governance and STS
critiques of public engagement in science. She participated in a stakeholder workshop, in
the multi-stakeholder workshop and in one of the ‘STEP into the Future’ events (on syn-
thetic biology). The study draws on our experience and observation of the events, as well
100 Journal of Sociology 51(1)

as on our interpretations of the reports, feedback (collected by independent evaluators)

and outcomes. While Marks’ role was closer to the classic role of social scientist brought
in to provide ‘social expertise’ to public engagement work, Russell’s role was more unu-
sual, and lay somewhere between an ethnographic ‘laboratory’ study (but in a policy
context) and transdisciplinary action research.
This article contributes to the growing literature on reflexive analyses of public
engagement (Calvert and Martin, 2009; Chilvers, 2013; Goven, 2006; Irwin, 2001,
2006). We are not attempting what Lynch calls ‘reflexive objectification’ (2000: 30–1)
where analysts are thought to have a more detached and true understanding of the situa-
tion; rather, we apply critical tools from sociology and STS to examine this process of
public engagement and our roles in it, and propose alternative (to mainstream instrumen-
tal approaches) ways of thinking and doing public engagement (what Lynch might call
‘interpretative reflexivity’, 2000: 32–3).
In what follows, we highlight theoretical contributions from STS that can underpin a
constructive approach that stays committed to some of the critical roots of STS, but aims
to avoid ‘corrosive’ critique (explained below). We then examine our case study, STEP,
considering its positioning within a policy setting and its contributions to opening up
discussions about a range of biosciences and biotechnologies. We look at examples and
opportunities for critique and care, and how public engagement approaches like STEP
may create space for a normative sociology of bio-knowledge. We also consider the dif-
ficulties encountered by STS scholars and sociologists when they engage with research-
ers and practitioners from other fields. We then discuss the overall limitations and
opportunities for a constructive, sociological approach and reflect on the implications for
future encounters between social science, publics and bio-knowledge.

Critique, pragmatism and care

As mentioned above, there is some evidence of a shift, at least at the discursive level,
towards more deliberative and inclusive forms of governance of science and technology.
However, a number of studies have shown that unacknowledged normative assumptions
(Wynne, 2006) or ‘latent premises’ (Russell et al., 2010) – what Burawoy might call
‘value premises’ – constrain this shift. These premises limit who can be invited into a
policy room, who, once there, can talk and be heard, and what they will be able to talk
about (e.g. Chilvers, 2008; Delgado et al., 2011; Felt and Wynne, 2007; Irwin, 2001;
Macnaghten et al., 2005).
This situation leads to double disenchantment. On the one hand STS scholars con-
tinue to highlight the limitations of public engagement exercises and the silencing of
lay voices and alternative forms of expertise (e.g. Chilvers, 2013; Goven, 2006; Kurian
and Wright, 2012; Lyons and Whelan, 2010; Petersen and Bowman, 2012; Stirling,
2008). On the other hand, those who commission programs of public engagement feel
constantly criticised and that critics have inadequate understanding of real-world con-
straints (see Cormick, 2009). The latter also find it difficult to accommodate the vari-
ous interests: publics, social science scholars, scientists, politicians, policy makers and
other stakeholders (Hendriks et al., 2007). This tension is at the heart of the present
case study.
Marks and Russell 101

Latour (2004) argues that social sciences, including sociology and STS, should
move away from always criticising what others hold dear (‘don’t you see that your
attempt at engagement is flawed because of hidden interests and power differences?’)
while at the same time refusing critique of the things that we hold dear (sociology,
participation …). He is concerned that the critical social scientist will end up isolated
from the very people and practices s/he wants to influence: ‘The Zeus of Critique
rules absolutely, to be sure, but over a desert’ (Latour, 2004: 239). Latour argues that
social scientists should move from deconstructing ‘matters of fact’ towards assem-
bling ‘matters of concern’ (2004: 232). So the new social science critic does not
debunk scientists’ views that there are, somewhere out there, indisputable matters of
fact which are given by nature (devoid of contexts, social dimensions or histories),
and which can be revealed and called upon to close controversies. Instead, in a car-
ing way (following Haraway’s calls for care in reconstructing those things we decon-
struct), s/he ‘assembles’: s/he makes visible what makes up matters of concern (e.g.
people, worries, socio-technical artefacts, organisational values) and brings them
together to negotiate how disagreements may be temporarily settled (Latour, 2004,
2008).
More specifically, matters of concern, for Latour, ‘matter’ and have to be ‘liked’
(2008: 47–8): they do not simply exist in some kind of pure, but uninteresting, state; they
are built. The social scientist examines for whom and how they matter. Matters of con-
cern have to be ‘populated’ (2008: 48): they are affective entanglements (‘gatherings’) of
human and non-human actors, including for example biologists, histories, temporarily
stabilised social arrangements and bacteria. Finally, matters of concern need to be ‘dura-
ble’ (2008: 48): they should be ‘kept up, cared for, accompanied, restored, duplicated,
saved’ by a range of actors (2008: 49).
Latour’s vision encourages social scientists to politely interact with other actors in
assembling these matters of concern. This vision has been criticised for not allowing
difficult questions to be asked (e.g. about justice) and for excluding important critical
voices (Papadopoulos, 2011: 187). Puig de la Bellacasa (2010, 2011, 2012) takes on
board Latour’s apprehension of Zeus-like essentialising and totalising critiques.
Borrowing from Haraway (e.g. 1991) she calls these ‘corrosive’ critiques (Puig de la
Bellacasa, 2011: 91, 2012: 204): they alienate those who are being criticised and pre-
vent any fruitful future conversations. However, she rejects Latour’s call to avoid all
critique. She builds on his interest in care, and suggests social scientists highlight the
often undervalued labours of care that are part of matters of concern (2011: 93), pay
attention to exclusion, and assemble matters of concern in ways to encourage care and
‘caring relationships’ (2011: 100); this involves critique, but hopefully does not
unquestioningly resort to ready-made solutions or impose worldviews in exclusionary
ways (2011: 100).
She builds on Tronto’s understanding of care as:

everything that we do to maintain, continue and repair ‘our world’ so that we can live in it as
well as possible. That world includes our bodies, ourselves, and our environment, all that we
seek to interweave in a complex, life-sustaining web. (Tronto, cited in Puig de la Bellacasa,
2010: 164)
102 Journal of Sociology 51(1)

She focuses on caring as relations, and not as a moral position that can be used to
argue for one’s moral superiority; she labels it an ‘ethico-political commitment to
neglected things’ (2011: 100). This might include thinking and speaking with, as well
as dissenting from, but attempts to avoid speaking on behalf of (2012, see also discus-
sion below).
Also of relevance here, Mol (2008), building in part on Tronto’s work and in a way
sympathetic to Latour’s argument about the importance of assembling matters of con-
cern, has discussed a ‘logic of care’, as an alternative to a ‘logic of choice’ common in
health settings. Like Bellacasa, Mol emphasises the nature of care as a practice – an
interaction rather than a transaction – involving a ‘calm, persistent but forgiving effort to
improve the situation’ (Mol, 2008: 20). So for both Mol and Bellacasa, care is not a uni-
versalising, totalising ethical principle, rather it is about doing things with care, where
caring is different in different situations (see also Mol et al., 2010: 13). More specifically,
acting with an ethos of care is about ‘persistently tinkering in a world full of complex
ambivalence and shifting tensions’ (Mol et al., 2010: 14).
Barnes (2008) has also referred to an ethic of care in relation to deliberation. She calls
for deliberative processes in social policy contexts that are able to cope with ‘emotional
morality’, that is the affective and emotional dimensions that accompany moral reason-
ing and are associated with the emotional content of experiences, values and the conse-
quences of decisions. This resonates here: discussions of science and technology are
often thought of as ‘hard’, objective domains (matters of fact), but a caring approach to
biosciences and biotechnologies, we think, must also be capable of containing, support-
ing and valuing this emotional morality.
A normative sociology of bio-knowledge with care in a central role is one that sup-
ports the building of new knowledge about biosciences and biotechnologies, and their
embeddedness within society, in ways that try to make visible, and therefore changeable,
asymmetries in power and unacknowledged latent premises (including our own); it rec-
ognises that bio-knowledge, like other knowledges, is ‘world-making’ (Puig de la
Bellacasa, 2010, 2011). This sociology draws on critical insights from STS and sociol-
ogy but aims to stay away from corrosive critique, recognising that drawing out the dif-
ference between corrosive and useful critique is a central challenge; it creates spaces to
‘assemble’ ‘matters of concern’; and it practices care by gathering neglected things and
voices, not simply by stating good intentions. This sociology may be disruptive but is
also constructive. This reminds us that we must take responsibility for the things we
assemble (Latour, 2004), because, as Haraway (1991) argues, these can be hurtful in dif-
ferent ways (see also Marks, 2012; Van der Ploeg, 2001).
This article, then, contributes to a normative sociology of bio-knowledge by examin-
ing the dimensions (potential and actual) of care in a particular instance of public engage-
ment in the biosciences and biotechnologies. Specifically, we explore examples of,
opportunities for, and tensions with careful tinkering by organisers of public engagement
who aim to create spaces for a range of actors (including often-marginalised ones) to
move beyond clashes over matters of fact and towards assembling matters of concern.
We also examine the tensions for social scientists when they enter policy settings and try
to carefully assemble their matters of concern (e.g. the need for inclusive public discus-
sions about biosciences) with those of other actors. We highlight examples of care in
Marks and Russell 103

practice, in particular the ones that may open up difficult discussions and questions about
bio-knowledge.

STEP: opportunities and tensions for serviceable STS/

public sociology
The spaces that STEP created – policy side rooms?
Australia has a relatively marginal position in relation to the global biotechnology indus-
try. This means that the private sector is less dominant in setting the innovation agenda
here than, for example, in the US. There is pressure for the government to support indus-
try, including by promoting public acceptance of emerging science and technologies.
Australian government agencies have seen a role here for public engagement.6 The pub-
lic awareness and community engagement (PACE) program was therefore an important
part of the National Enabling Technology Strategy (NETS), with a remit to improve its
community engagement work (Russell, 2013). NETS-PACE received a significant pro-
portion of the budget as well as rhetorical support from within NETS and from the then
Minister, Senator Kim Carr. However, this did not mean that it was central to policy
advice or development, which was dealt with by a separate (though connected) policy
program.
Salter and Jones (2006: 350) argue that ‘core’ policy actors (and agencies) are those
that align with the current dominant ‘policy paradigm’ and are thereby given cultural
authority. While what counts as the core and the periphery may change over time, this
way of thinking about policy highlights that the creation of a program or other entity
ostensibly connected to policy is not sufficient to create policy-change. If the new entity
does not align its ways of thinking and doing with the dominant policy paradigm (or
transform the dominant paradigm), it will remain at the periphery and will struggle to
have any influence.
So while NETS-PACE was part of the overall government strategy on enabling tech-
nologies, its role in public engagement (which might enable people to articulate opposi-
tion to an area of biosciences) does not necessarily align with the policy paradigm of
NETS, which was supportive of the tellingly labelled ‘enabling technologies’. As such,
NETS-PACE and the STEP program remained at the periphery of policy, with an implicit
role in ‘managing’ both stakeholder and public responses to emerging technologies, par-
ticularly when those responses were negative. Specifically, while STEP was praised and
supported within the department, it did not have a policy mandate; it could create a
framework for ‘best practice’ in public engagement, but there was no promise that this
would ever become government policy.
Therefore, we argue that the spaces created by STEP for assembling matters of con-
cern were not ‘policy rooms’ proper (Nowotny, 2007; Webster, 2007). While we accept
Nowotny’s (2007: 480) argument that it is difficult to point exactly to where policies are
made (given the co-constitution of science, technology, policy and society, and given the
complex and multi-sited influences on policies), we follow Webster’s usage of the word
here and deploy the label ‘policy room’ to indicate spaces where government policy is
made; ‘the institutional space occupied by established science and technology policy’
104 Journal of Sociology 51(1)

(Webster, 2007: 461). We are talking here for instance about where moratoria on geneti-
cally modified crops may be instituted, or where regulatory frameworks for nanotechnol-
ogy may be set up. Policy making did not happen in STEP spaces, although policy actors
were invited in with other stakeholders.
Nowotny argues that there might be important policy-related rooms (i.e. not policy
rooms proper but rooms where discussions and decisions may influence policy), situated
‘below the upper floor’ (2007: 480). However, we like to think of the STEP spaces in a
less hierarchical way as occupying ‘side rooms’; connected to policy rooms, with access
to policy issues, and with some degree of policy legitimacy and potential impact. Indeed,
although on the margin, these ‘side rooms’ opened up a number of possibilities, in par-
ticular because they were not as constrained by institutional structures (Papadopoulos,
2011: 183–5). It was therefore possible to construct new spaces: new knowledge spaces
(Webster, 2007), where neglected things could be ‘assembled’ (Latour, 2004; Puig de la
Bellacasa, 2011). Overall, STEP was both less influential and less constrained than its
position in government might have suggested.

Framing of the side rooms: the importance of critical insights

Critique was an important driver of the STEP process. Social science academics (e.g.
Kyle and Dodds, 2009; Lyons and Whelan, 2010) and non-governmental organisations
(NGOs) including environmental, consumer health and union groups had been critical of
NETS in an ongoing way; addressing (managing) this critique was a rationale for initiat-
ing the engagement process. So in an important sense, radical critique of the usual
approach to the governance of the biosciences and emerging technologies was a key
reason for STEP to start.
Importantly though, in the way STEP was conducted, these critical views were not simply
managed away. Russell was interested in using STEP to bring together the above critics and
the people who supported the approaches they were criticising. The hope was that assembling
and making visible these different matters of concern (about risk governance, about the
importance of emerging technologies in Australia’s future prosperity, etc.) would open up
normative assumptions and latent premises underlying decision makers’, but also social sci-
entists’ and NGOs’, approaches to emerging technologies and public engagement.
Russell also deployed her own critical background in STS and Technology Assessment
to bring these insights into the STEP side rooms. She drew on STS arguments that par-
ticipatory, rather than elitist, approaches to governance and public engagement are
important to open up the aforementioned normative assumptions. As such, the spaces
created by STEP were based on critical insights about engagement processes (how we
should talk about emerging science and technology), but not about content (what we
should talk about, what risk is, etc.). Inevitably, tensions arose at the juxtaposition of
diverse perspectives (similar to findings by Hendriks et al., 2007).

Tensions in the side rooms

An important early tension involved different conceptions of the nature and role of public
engagement in emerging biotechnology development. Scientists focused on education,
Marks and Russell 105

while industry representatives discussed ‘acceptance’ as a goal of engagement. This was

despite the framing by Russell and introductory material that aimed to encourage a broader
view of engagement. For example, Russell, in setting the context for the multi-stakeholder
workshop, described a spectrum of approaches to involving publics in science and tech-
nology decision-making. She emphasised the shift from technocracy, to public education
campaigns, to participatory approaches in public engagement, a shift influenced by STS.
She asked participants to design potential engagement activities for STEP, specifically
ones that would involve citizens in decision-making. Despite this, the scientists in particu-
lar remained committed to educational approaches.
Marks, in interacting with scientists in this exercise, was frustrated by their educa-
tion focus, which included suggestions for better web-pages, more outreach activities,
education brochures, etc. She was, however, hesitant to bring her radical-critical
insights to contradict them (perhaps by highlighting the social construction of bio-
knowledge and sociological findings that mistrust of science does not necessarily
reflect misunderstanding). Her reluctance was in part due to some of these scientists
earlier highlighting how difficult it was for them to be involved in STEP at all, and
thus performing ‘suffering’ (Brown and Michael, 2002) to indicate authentic commit-
ment to the process.7
Here, Marks and Russell’s matters of concern – opening up spaces for public
involvement – could not be ‘assembled’ (in Latour and Puig de la Bellacasa’s sense)
with scientists’ need to create public support through science education. Nonetheless,
these different matters of concern were made visible through these discussions, and
opened up avenues for Russell to bring them together through ‘tinkering’ with the
framing of future events.
In a subsequent ‘STEP into the Future’ project on nanotechnology and energy,
participants were asked to think through different ways of defining the ‘energy prob-
lem’ in Australia. Russell, in framing the interaction in this way, was hoping to
encourage discussion of the wider issue of how technology development is influenced
by problem definition. While some of the scientists again took on the role of educa-
tors, and publics took on the role of learners (similar to Kerr et al., 2007), some
groups did engage in fresh conversations about these broader underlying assump-
tions. They thus aligned with Russell’s as well as others’ matter of concern, and these
assumptions were opened up for further discussion. Further tinkering by Russell led
to a later project on nanotechnology and informed choice involving a citizen panel
process being designed with clear separation between information provision and
deliberation. An information evening was held, in which participants were presented
with one-page briefs from a panel of key informants representing different perspec-
tives, expertise and views on the topic; they also interacted with this panel in a ques-
tion and answer session. However, their deliberations – in a modified world café and
a ‘dotmocracy’8 session – did not involve the ‘expert’ panel and were facilitated by an
independent facilitator. In this case, citizens were able to deliberate without the influ-
ence of ‘experts’; the latter said they were impressed with ‘how engaged’ the citizen
panel was. This suggests some aspects of scientists’ matters of concern regarding
science–public interactions could be re-assembled with social scientists’ interest in
democratisation into new matters of concern.
106 Journal of Sociology 51(1)

Neglected issues and unacknowledged normative assumptions?

The use of a human rights approach to a normative sociology of bio-knowledge is helpful
in highlighting how some areas of knowledge production may exclude or disenfranchise
particular groups of people. For example, focusing on the distributive justice of innova-
tion can make visible who receives the benefits of new developments and who misses
out. We believe there is a need to complement these kinds of analyses by also examining
the unacknowledged normative assumptions (Wynne, 2006) or ‘latent premises’ (Russell
et al., 2010) behind technological developments and underlying ideas about desirable
futures and the ways in which ‘benefits’ shape technological directions and ‘progress’ for
everyone.
For example, a STEP nano-bionics forum, though highly policy relevant in informing
current policy decisions about the ethical conduct of clinical trials, restricted the contri-
bution of citizens to input from users of nano-bionic devices and their carers about how
these devices should be tested. Larger questions about the desirability of developing
nano-bionic devices such as ear implants and artificial eyes, including issues of disability
and human enhancement, were framed out. Interestingly, some of these issues emerged
regardless, suggesting that the framing was open enough to enable unexpected matters of
concern to be gathered. Thus we see value in genuine engagement with neglected voices
about neglected issues, particularly if opportunities exist to improve policy, but empha-
sise the need for engagement that deals with the value premises of new science and
technology.
One ‘STEP into the Future’ event, a multi-stakeholder forum on ‘Societal Implications
of Enabling Technologies’, took a very broad approach to making visible normative
assumptions in relation to biosciences and emerging technologies. Participants in mixed
groups were asked to consider, very broadly, the societal implications of various areas of
technological development. In another exercise, groups were asked to map the decision-
making context of emerging technologies. This demonstrated the very different under-
standings and priorities that come from different perspectives and the ultimate complexity
of this context. Care in this case study was practised by those who were engaging the
participants by paying attention to neglected perspectives, and by trying to improve a
situation where important views about social dimensions of technologies were not being
heard.
A fascinating result from evaluation of this forum was that some participants reported
a lower awareness of the topic after the forum than before. Based on their other responses,
we interpret this to reflect an appreciation that the topic was far more complex than they
had first thought. This led to discomfort for some participants, which, like ambivalence,
may be a valuable resource in opening up these conversations (Russell, 2013).

New décor in the policy side rooms

An important feature of STEP was the involvement of the field of community engage-
ment, which is strong in Australia, particularly at local government levels. Methods
used in the workshops and forums were designed by some of the leading engagement
practitioners in the country, who also facilitated these events. This field is informed to
Marks and Russell 107

some extent by deliberative democracy theory, but is primarily a field of practice, built
on the design, practice and evaluation of community engagement interventions across
a range of decision-making domains. Practitioners are best known for creating safe
spaces where people can bring their intelligence, experience and creativity to a discus-
sion. What this field and these practitioners brought to the STEP side rooms was not
new furniture, in the sense of new policy instruments or rubrics, so much as new décor.
They created a new atmosphere, with their ice-breakers, post-it notes and world cafes,9
and even more importantly with their warmth, their appreciation and their commitment
to creating a safe space for good conversation. These practitioners brought care and an
invitation for participants to care. This was care as practice, as interaction, and as Mol
(2008) puts it, ‘calm, persistent but forgiving effort to improve the situation’. It was
care that accommodated tensions, created symmetry and allowed for transformation, at
least to some extent.
An example is a synthetic biology scoping workshop, which was held in conjunction
with a policy forum organised by the innovation department. Participants moved from
the theatrette, in which they had sat through the obligatory expert presentations (plus
‘other’ perspectives of an NGO representative and a lawyer), followed by a question
and answer session, into a workshop room set up like a café. They worked in groups,
moved about the room, wrote on paper tablecloths; they made statements, reflected on
them, grouped them, questioned them, and elaborated and voted on them. The atmos-
phere was very different from the preceding forum, and created space for alternative
perspectives (from STS scholars, NGOs, artists, lawyers) to have influence. The work-
shop resulted in an emergent understanding of synthetic biology development and its
contradictions and tensions. The central themes were visions of synthetic biology as
open and convergent and as socially responsible and responsive, and a dystopian vision
of life as a raw material.

Policy influence?
An independent evaluator who surveyed participants identified lack of policy influence
as the major weakness of STEP. This was certainly a reflection of STEP not having made
it into the policy room proper. But was this criticism based on realistic ambitions
(Hennen, 2012)? Multiple factors, actors and inputs influence policy. The governance of
new biosciences and biotechnologies is complex, involving at times new arrangements,
new assemblages, of actors, objects, ideas and perspectives. Perhaps STEP can provide
opportunities to assemble matters of concern. However, direct policy influence is often a
‘mirage’ (Wynne, 2007; see also Davies et al., 2009; Hennen, 2012), and not in fact the
intent of the STEP side rooms. Their influence is more likely to come from presenting
new perspectives and lenses to those who will later enter the policy rooms proper, creat-
ing opportunities for them to see things a little differently, including their own roles. The
STEP community included key stakeholders and experts who provide advice to policy
makers and their participation probably (hopefully) led to policy influence that was as
significant as any direct impacts of the engagement reports on policy.
For example, the synthetic biology workshop revealed a vision for this field as fol-
lowing a different path from previous biosciences and biotechnologies (especially
108 Journal of Sociology 51(1)

genetically modified food): open, responsible and responsive. The workshop clarified
this vision and highlighted the importance of public engagement. In the end, the picture
built up in this STEP workshop integrated a range of matters of concern, both apprehen-
sions and aspirations. This created a question and a vision for scientists about how to
move into the future, rather than how to reduce the impact of what they (sometimes
unquestioningly) do. To build on this vision, scientists, policy makers and social scien-
tists need to care in at least two ways; by considering those neglected things and people,
but also by being committed and responsible for their new knowledge; they need to
consider the part they play in constructing this new field.
Perhaps the value and the challenge of opening up the question of how a new field
constructs itself are highlighted by the attitudes of those who were not engaged. In the
government forum on synthetic biology, a prominent scientist in the area, who had not
attended any earlier workshops, explained why he refused to be involved in public
engagement exercises in a slide that simply read, ‘postmodernism’. Apparently it goes
without saying that postmodernism is a direction to be avoided by any rational scien-
tist. We can only hope that, had the anti-postmodernism scientist attended earlier STEP
workshops, shared matters of concerns with others, and heard their matters of concern,
his criticism may have been ‘moderated’ (Latour, 2004). Perhaps this scientist’s frus-
tration with postmodernism (which might be a frustration with corrosive critique)
could have been assembled with social scientists’ frustrations with scientists’ hubris
and unwillingness to think about the social context of their work; this might have cre-
ated an ongoing joint interest in respecting each other’s work and building socially
responsible bio-knowledge.

Discussion: a caring normative sociology of bio-knowledge?

Here, we have examined an attempt at institutionalising a participatory approach to pub-
lic engagement in Australia, as an example of public sociology/serviceable STS in prac-
tice, a version of normative sociology of bio-knowledge. STEP created what we called
policy ‘side rooms’, which have different opportunities and constraints to Webster’s
(2007) policy room(s) proper. We now unpack further the roles of critique, concern and
care in these rooms. Let us remember that, following Haraway and Puig de la Bellacasa,
as well as Mol, we are not here looking for a ‘totalising’, universal approach that will
work in all circumstances, but we try to pull out what it might mean, in this particular
instance, to assemble matters of concern, to avoid corrosive critique and to practise care.
There were a number of tensions in the role of critique in the side rooms, and evidence
at some points that critique has indeed ‘run out of steam’ (Latour, 2004). For instance, the
calls by a scientist to avoid ‘postmodernism’ suggest that some versions of social science
critique have made it into scientists’ discourses; however these critiques are being
rejected. The label ‘postmodernism’ is used by this scientist to demean any suggestions
by social scientists that science’s ‘matters of fact’ should be re-thought of as full of poli-
tics, history and culture.
This is not to say that there was no space for critique. Clearly, the structure and fram-
ing of the STEP side rooms was inspired by radical STS/sociological critique and com-
mitted to what Papadopoulos (2011) calls ‘participatory politics’. But, as in all
Marks and Russell 109

participatory politics, some limits are set by the institutional context. Marks’ failure (per-
haps) to voice a critique about some scientists’ determined focus on ‘educating’ ignorant
publics, illustrates reluctance to become the debunker, the Zeus reigning alone in the
desert. Instead, she felt compelled to ‘moderate’ her critique (Latour, 2004), lest she not
be invited back into the side room, let alone the policy room proper.
However, the STEP process did enable the ‘assembling’ (Latour, 2004; Puig de la
Bellacasa, 2011) of a range of ‘matters of concern’. Russell here can be seen as playing
the role of Latour’s new critic, the one who does not debunk what others hold dear, but
offers ‘arenas in which to gather’ (2004: 246). In these side rooms then, diverse human
and non-human actors were brought together (e.g. people concerned about asbestos-like
effects of nanomaterials on workers’ bodies or about overly burdensome and stifling
regulation, policy makers, interested publics, representations of synthetic biology, and
paper tablecloths on which possible utopian and dystopian futures were articulated); they
could then contribute to building new bio-knowledge, new world-making ways of think-
ing and doing.
We see evidence of doing with care here too. In Mol et al.’s words (2010: 14), Russell
and other participants were ‘persistently tinkering in a world full of complex ambiva-
lence and shifting tensions’. These tensions and ambivalences were expressed either
directly or through reports and summaries, they were put to diverse people, and they
encouraged some to think in different and sometimes uncomfortably new ways. They
drew attention to different material realities and concerns. Approaches to public engage-
ment that failed to open up stale controversies were adapted in subsequent iterations, to
shift roles in the side rooms so that some transformation was possible. Small steps were
taken.
STEP also sought to include ‘neglected’ voices and perspectives, and to tackle some
exclusions and power asymmetries. This meant, for instance, that lay members of the
public were asked to explore a variety of concerns in spaces where scientists or other
experts were not present, thereby avoiding shutting down public discussion and attempts
at asking broader ethical questions (cf. Felt et al., 2009). Similarly, social scientists,
while by no means powerless, were nonetheless given separate spaces where they could
be fed up with the apparent lack of take up by scientists of their critical messages; where
they could attempt to articulate these frustrations in a safe space, and get them passed on,
anonymously, to the multi-stakeholder workshop. This enabled some movement towards
what Puig de la Bellacasa (2011) calls ‘awareness of oppression’, whereby social scien-
tists, union representatives, green NGOs and scientists could speak for others (perhaps
including workers, future generations, junior scientists, cells or model organisms) who
were not there, and highlight some of the ‘neglected experiences that create oppositional
standpoints’ (Puig de la Bellacasa, 2011: 96).
There is an inherent tension in this approach, however. As feminists and others have
highlighted, speaking on behalf of others can be fraught (Haraway, 1991; Puig de la
Bellacasa, 2012), even seen as ‘usurpation’ (Puig de la Bellacasa, 2012: 209). Indeed,
some may not want to participate in this particular STEP side room, they might question
its fundamental location under NETS. It is after all a strategy of a government committed
to a vision of progress facilitated by ‘enabling technologies’. While it might still be help-
ful for those invited into the side rooms to express the concerns of others not
110 Journal of Sociology 51(1)

present – and do so in a caring, respectful way – it might also be important to push for
their inclusion. A more radical proposal would include different ways of articulating
concerns and raising issues that might not sit as comfortably with Latour’s ‘polite’
approach, or Webster’s serviceable STS, or even Burawoy’s public sociology. While this
was never the aim of STEP, there is a need for other spaces too, ones in different build-
ings, even in fresh air, which can more readily include radical voices and approaches
(Papadopoulos, 2011: 188–95; Welsh and Wynne, 2013).
So what of the roles of sociologists and STS scholars? We have talked about the
importance of sociological critique in driving the STEP process and in bringing alterna-
tive frames and creative tensions that open up issues for discussion, but can sociology
and STS scholars also provide the care and the safe space? Is it possible to be both prag-
matic and accommodating, and also radical-critical? Can these disparate roles really sit
with one actor, or one type of actor? We are unsure. Here, it seemed important for some-
one (or several people) to remain committed to STEP, to assemble, to continue tinkering,
to bring the ‘calm, persistent but forgiving effort to improve the situation’.
The creative tensions surrounding the assembling described above and the discomfort
that sometimes accompanies those tensions can be corrosive if they are not balanced with
positive and constructive experiences of engagement. If Zeus does not want to be alone,
s/he needs to create an oasis in the desert, a safe and fertile place, where travellers from
different places will want to gather, where conversation will flourish, where corrosive
criticism and scepticism do not dominate. To house these tensions and difficult conversa-
tions then, there is value in creating a positive, safe and caring environment in the STEP
side rooms.
It was hoped that STEP might become an ongoing initiative, a dynamic framework
that could be re-assembled, on which to pin some hopes of opening up more conversa-
tions about emerging bio-knowledge. As such, it could perhaps have provided a hub for
a range of activities and assemblages; it could have contributed to capacity building
among citizens and decision makers; and it could have experimented with a range of
methods, including social media, for bringing people together to contribute to decision-
making about both research and policy.10 However, it was not to be. NETS and the STEP
program ended in 2013; a side room that could be sacrificed to budget pressures without
harming the edifice, following a venerable tradition.11 So what is left? The STEP frame-
work was published under creative commons, which means that it can be used and modi-
fied. More importantly, the notion of a creative commons extends to the STEP community,
not just the piece of intellectual property that is the framework document. The frame-
work is something to hang things on, not just processes, principles and platforms, but
ideas, hopes, discomforts, aspirations and cares. All those involved in STEP are part of it
and take it with them. If they care.
Beyond STEP, there are lessons, for public engagement, for assembling matters of
concern, and for a normative sociology of bio-knowledge. One of these is an understand-
ing that there is creative tension between radical and pragmatic roles and approaches.
The two modes are not readily separable (Wynne 2007) and can work in concert to
improve engagement: however, they can be differently brought to the fore in different
places and by different actors. Another insight is that care, and the persistent and patient
tinkering that comes with it, can transform both the practice and experience of public
Marks and Russell 111

engagement, recognising that engagement is a situated and transient process and there-
fore must always be nurtured. Care can work to assemble people and perspectives, open
up normative issues and potentially build reflexivity in us as sociologists as well as in
those we bring together. As such, we believe that care has much to bring to a normative
sociology of bio-knowledge.

Funding
Dr Marks’ expenses (travel and accommodation) at the STEP meetings and workshops were cov-
ered by the Department of Industry, Innovation, Science, Research and Tertiary Education
(DIISRTE). Dr Russell was employed by DIISRTE throughout the STEP program.

Notes
  1. For an introduction to STS, see for example Sismondo (2010).
 2. We use the term public engagement to designate science/government-public interactions
which attempt to involve members of the public in two-way conversations, and that may or
may not have policy implications.
  3. We take Wynne’s (2007: 496) point that the line between critical and pragmatic scholarship is
not easily drawn.
  4. Contrasting stakeholders and publics is problematic, and these labels do not account for peo-
ple’s multiple subject positions, or for the constructed nature of what counts as having a
stake. The label ‘stakeholder’ was used in the STEP process because of its importance in the
language of this policy context, not its academic merits.
 5. Both the STEP co-design process and ‘STEP into the Future’ were awarded core values
awards by the Australasian branch of the International Association for Public Participation.
The STEP framework was published under creative commons and is available online (www.
industry.gov.au/step). For further information, see Russell (2013).
  6. A Liberal/National Coalition government was elected in 2013. Despite refunding some
science-in-society programs such as ‘Inspiring Australia’ it does not seem committed to
public engagement, except as an instrumental tool for public education and support for
science.
  7. Drawing on the sociology of emotions, Brown and Michael (2002) have argued that scientists
and others present themselves as suffering (rather than as authoritative figures) in order to
project images of authenticity. These ‘performances of suffering’ are meant to show transpar-
ency and increase trust in science.
 8. In ‘dotmocracy’, group support for recommendations is systematically and anonymously
recorded in writing to visually show areas of agreement.
  9. Although such things may be familiar in public discussions elsewhere, they are still a novelty
in high-level policy discussions in Australia.
10. For example, Kaye and colleagues describe a range of Participant-Centric Initiatives to inform
medical research (Kaye et al., 2012).
11. One thinks of the Office of Technology Assessment and the Danish Board of Technology

References
Barnes, M. (2008) ‘Passionate Participation: Emotional Experiences and Expressions in
Deliberative Forums’, Critical Social Policy 28(4): 461–81.
Bowker, G.C. and S.L. Star (1999) Sorting Things Out: Classification and Its Consequences
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
112 Journal of Sociology 51(1)

Brown, N. and M. Michael (2002) ‘From Authority to Authenticity: The Changing Governance of
Biotechnology’, Health, Risk and Society 4(3): 259–72.
Burawoy, M. (2005) ‘2004 American Sociological Association Presidential Address: For Public
Sociology’, British Journal of Sociology 56(2): 259–94.
Burawoy, M. (2009) ‘The Public Sociology Wars’, pp. 449–73 in V. Jeffries (ed.) Handbook of
Public Sociology. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.
Burchell, K. (2009) ‘A Helping Hand or a Servant Discipline? Interpreting Non-academic
Perspectives on the Roles of Social Science in Participatory Policy-making’, Science,
Technology & Innovation Studies 5(1): 49–61.
Callon, M. and V. Rabeharisoa (2008) ‘The Growing Engagement of Emergent Concerned Groups
in Political and Economic Life: Lessons from the French Association of Neuromuscular
Disease Patients’, Science, Technology, & Human Values 33(2): 230–61.
Calvert, J. and P. Martin (2009) ‘The Role of Social Scientists in Synthetic Biology’, EMBO
Reports 10(3): 201–4.
Chilvers, J. (2008) ‘Environmental Risk, Uncertainty, and Participation: Mapping an Emergent
Epistemic Community’, Environment and Planning A 40(12): 2990–3008.
Chilvers, J. (2013) ‘Reflexive Engagement? Actors, Learning, and Reflexivity in Public Dialogue
on Science and Technology’, Science Communication 35(3): 283–310.
Collins, H.M. and R. Evans (2002) ‘The Third Wave of Science Studies: Studies of Expertise and
Experience’, Social Studies of Science 32(2): 235–96.
Cormick, C. (2009) ‘Piecing Together the Elephant: Public Engagement on Nanotechnology
Challenges’, Science and Engineering Ethics 15(4): 439–42.
Davies, S.R., E. McCallie, E. Simonsson, J.L. Lehr and S. Duensing (2009) ‘Discussing Dialogue:
Perspectives on the Value of Science Dialogue Events that Do Not Inform Policy’, Public
Understanding of Science 18(3): 338–53.
Delgado, A., K. Lein Kjølberg and F. Wickson (2011) ‘Public Engagement Coming of Age:
From Theory to Practice in STS Encounters with Nanotechnology’, Public Understanding
of Science 20(6): 826–45.
Durant, J. (1999) ‘Participatory Technology Assessment and the Democratic Model of the Public
Understanding of Science’, Science and Public Policy 26(5): 313–19.
Epstein, S. (1996) Impure Science: AIDS, Activism, and the Politics of Knowledge. Berkeley, CA:
University of California Press.
Felt, U. and B. Wynne (2007) Taking European Knowledge Seriously. Report of the Expert Group
on Science and Governance to the Science, Economy and Society Directorate. Luxembourg:
Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.
Felt, U., M. Fochler, A. Muller and M. Strassnig (2009) ‘Unruly Ethics: On the Difficulties of a
Bottom-up Approach to Ethics in the Field of Genomics’, Public Understanding of Science
18(3): 354–71.
Ferrari, A. and A. Nordmann (2010) ‘Beyond Conversation: Some Lessons for Nanoethics’,
NanoEthics 4(2): 171–81.
Goven, J. (2006) ‘Processes of Inclusion, Cultures of Calculation, Structures of Power; Scientific
Citizenship and the Royal Commission on Genetic Modification’, Science, Technology, &
Human Values 31(5): 565–98.
Haraway, D.J. (1991) ‘A Cyborg Manifesto: Science, Technology, and Socialist-Feminism in the
Late Twentieth Century’, pp. 243–51 in Simians, Cyborgs and Women: The Reinvention of
Nature. London: Free Association Books.
Hendriks, C.M., J.S. Dryzek and C. Hunold (2007) ‘Turning up the Heat: Partisanship in
Deliberative Innovation’, Political Studies 55(2): 362–83.
Marks and Russell 113

Hennen, L. (2012) ‘Why Do We Still Need Participatory Technology Assessment?’, Poiesis &
Praxis 9(1–2): 27–41.
Irwin, A. (2001) ‘Constructing the Scientific Citizen: Science and Democracy in the Biosciences’,
Public Understanding of Science 10(1): 1–18.
Irwin, A. (2006) ‘The Politics of Talk: Coming to Terms with the “New” Scientific Governance’,
Social Studies of Science 36(2): 299–320.
Irwin, A. and B. Wynne (eds) (1996) Misunderstanding Science? The Public Reconstruction of
Science and Technology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Jasanoff, S. (2003) ‘Technologies of Humility: Citizen Participation in Governing Science’,
Minerva 41(3): 233–44.
Jasanoff, S. (2005) Designs on Nature: Science and Democracy in Europe and the United States.
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Kaye, J., L. Curren, N. Anderson, K. Edwards, S.M. Fullerton, N. Kanellopoulou et al. (2012)
‘From Patients to Partners: Participant-centric Initiatives in Biomedical Research’, Nature
Reviews Genetics 13(5): 371–6.
Kerr, A., S. Cunningham-Burley and R. Tutton (2007) ‘Shifting Subject Positions: Experts and
Lay People in Public Dialogue’, Social Studies of Science 37(3): 385–411.
Kowal, E. (2013) ‘Orphan DNA: Indigenous Samples, Ethical Biovalue and Postcolonial Science’,
Social Studies of Science 43(4): 577–97.
Krimsky, S. (2004) Science in the Private Interest: Has the Lure of Profits Corrupted Biomedical
Research? Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.
Kurian, P. and J. Wright (2012) ‘Science, Governance, and Public Participation: An Analysis of
Decision Making on Genetic Modification in Aotearoa/New Zealand’, Public Understanding
of Science 21(4): 447–64.
Kyle, R. and S. Dodds (2009) ‘Avoiding Empty Rhetoric: Engaging Publics in Debates about
Nanotechnologies’, Science and Engineering Ethics 15(1): 81–96.
Latour, B. (2004) ‘Why Has Critique Run out of Steam? From Matters of Fact to Matters of
Concern’, Critical Inquiry 30(2): 225–48.
Latour, B. (2008) ‘What Is the Style of Matters of Concern?’, pp. 29–50 in What is the Style of
Matters of Concern? Two Lectures in Empirical Philosophy (Spinoza Lectures). Amsterdam:
Van Gorcum.
Lynch, M. (2000) ‘Against Reflexivity as an Academic Virtue and Source of Privileged
Knowledge’, Theory, Culture & Society 17(3): 26–54.
Lynch, M. (2009) ‘Science as a Vacation: Deficits, Surfeits, PUSS, and Doing Your Own Job’,
Organization 16(1): 101–19.
Lynch, M. and S. Cole (2005) ‘Science and Technology Studies on Trial: Dilemmas of Expertise’,
Social Studies of Science 35(2): 269–311.
Lyons, K. and J. Whelan (2010) ‘Community Engagement to Facilitate, Legitimize and Accelerate
the Advancement of Nanotechnologies in Australia’, NanoEthics 4(4): 53–66.
Macnaghten, P., M.B. Kearnes and B. Wynne (2005) ‘Nanotechnology, Governance, and Public
Deliberation: What Role for the Social Sciences?’, Science Communication 27(2): 268–91.
Marks, N.J. (2012) ‘Cyborg Stem Cells in Public: Deconstructing and Taking Responsibility for
Categorizations’, New Genetics & Society 31(4): 359–84.
Mol, A. (2008) The Logic of Care: Health and the Problem of Patient Choice. Abingdon, Oxon;
New York: Routledge.
Mol, A., I. Moser and J. Pols (eds) (2010) Care in Practice: On Tinkering in Clinics, Homes and
Farms. Bielefeld: Transcript Verlag.
Nowotny, H. (2007) ‘How Many Policy Rooms Are There?’, Science, Technology, & Human
Values 32(4): 479–90.
114 Journal of Sociology 51(1)

Papadopoulos, D. (2011) ‘Alter-Ontologies: Towards a Constituent Politics in Technoscience’,

Social Studies of Science 41(2): 177–201.
Parry, S., W. Faulkner, S. Cunningham-Burley and N.J. Marks (2012) ‘Heterogeneous Agendas
around Public Engagement in Stem Cell Research: The Case for Maintaining Plasticity’,
Science and Technology Studies 25(2), URL (consulted 6 December 2014): http://www.sci-
encetechnologystudies.org/v25n2Parryetal
Petersen, A. (2013) ‘From Bioethics to a Sociology of Bio-knowledge’, Social Science & Medicine
98: 264–70.
Petersen, A. and D. Bowman (2012) ‘Engaging Whom and for What Ends? Australian Stakeholders’
Constructions of Public Engagement in Relation to Nanotechnologies’, Ethics in Science and
Environmental Politics 12(2): 67–79.
Puig de la Bellacasa, M. (2010) ‘Ethical Doings in Naturecultures’, Ethics, Place & Environment
13(2): 151–69.
Puig de la Bellacasa, M. (2011) ‘Matters of Care in Technoscience: Assembling Neglected Things’,
Social Studies of Science 41(1): 85–106.
Puig de la Bellacasa, M. (2012) ‘“Nothing Comes without Its World”: Thinking with Care’,
Sociological Review 60(2): 197–216.
Rose, N. (2007) The Politics of Life Itself: Biomedicine, Power, and Subjectivity in the Twenty-first
Century. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Russell, A.W. (2013) ‘Improving Legitimacy in Nanotechnology Policy Development through
Stakeholder and Community Engagement: Forging New Pathways’, Review of Policy
Research 30(5): 566–87.
Russell, A.W., F.M. Vanclay and H.J. Aslin (2010) ‘Technology Assessment in Social Context:
The Case for a New Framework for Assessing and Shaping Technological Developments’,
Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 28(2): 109–16.
Salter, B. and M. Jones (2006) ‘Change in the Policy Community of Human Genetics: A Pragmatic
Approach to Open Governance’, Policy & Politics 34(2): 347–66.
Schibeci, R. and J. Harwood (2007) ‘Stimulating Authentic Community Involvement in
Biotechnology Policy in Australia’, Public Understanding of Science 16(2): 245–55.
Sismondo, S. (2010) An Introduction to Science and Technology Studies, 2nd edn. Chichester:
Wiley-Blackwell.
Stirling, A. (2008) ‘“Opening up” and “Closing Down”: Power, Participation, and Pluralism
in the Social Appraisal of Technology’, Science, Technology, & Human Values 33(2):
262–94.
Thompson, C. (2005) Making Parents: The Ontological Choreography of Reproductive
Technologies. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Van der Ploeg, I. (2001) Prosthetic Bodies: The Construction of the Fetus and the Couple as
Patients in Reproductive Technologies. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.
Waldby, C. (2002) ‘Stem Cells, Tissue Cultures and the Production of Biovalue’, Health (London)
6(3): 305–23.
Webster, A. (2007) ‘Crossing Boundaries: Social Science in the Policy Room’, Science,
Technology, & Human Values 32(4): 458–78.
Welsh, I. and B. Wynne (2013) ‘Science, Scientism and Imaginaries of Publics in the UK: Passive
Objects, Incipient Threats’, Science as Culture 22(4): 540–66.
Williams, R. (2006) ‘Compressed Foresight and Narrative Bias: Pitfalls in Assessing High
Technology Futures’, Science as Culture 15(4): 327–48.
Wynne, B. (1996) ‘May the Sheep Safely Graze? A Reflexive View of the Expert–Lay Knowledge
Divide’, in S. Lash, B. Szerszynski and B. Wynne (eds) Risk, Environment and Modernity:
Towards a New Ecology. London: Sage.
Marks and Russell 115

Wynne, B. (2006) ‘Public Engagement as a Means of Restoring Public Trust in Science – Hitting
the Notes, but Missing the Music?’, Community Genetics 9(3): 211–20.
Wynne, B. (2007) ‘Dazzled by the Mirage of Influence?’, Science, Technology, & Human Values
32(4): 491–503.

Author biographies
Nicola J. Marks is Senior Lecturer in Science and Technology Studies at the University of
Wollongong. Her research interests include sociology of science and medicine, reproductive tech-
nologies, controversial science and public engagement. She is currently chief investigator with her
colleagues Professor Vera Mackie and Associate Professor Sarah Ferber on an ARC Discovery
Project entitled ‘IVF and Assisted Reproductive Technologies: The Global Experience’.
A. Wendy Russell is director of Double Arrow Consulting, a Canberra business specialising in
deliberative engagement. She is an associate of the Centre for Deliberative Democracy and
Global Governance at the University of Canberra and a visiting fellow at the Centre for the
Public Awareness of Science at the Australian National University. She previously worked in
the National Enabling Technologies Strategy – Public Awareness and Community Engagement
program of the Commonwealth Department of Industry, Innovation, Science, Research and
Tertiary Education, where she managed the Science and Technology Engagement Pathways
(STEP) program. Before that, she was senior lecturer in the School of Biological Sciences at the
University of Wollongong. Her research interests include deliberative democracy, technology
assessment and transdisciplinarity.