In 2006, a small group of UK academic scientists made headlines when they proposed the creation of interspecies embryos – mixing human and animal genetic material. A public campaign was fought to mobilize support for the research. Drawing on interviews with the key scientists
involved, this paper argues that engaging the public through communicating their ideas via the media can result in tensions between the necessity of, and inherent dangers in, scientists campaigning on controversial issues. Some scientists believed that communicating science had damaged their
professional standing in the eyes of their peers, who, in turn, policed the boundaries around what they believed constituted a “good” scientist. Tensions between promoting “science” versus promotion of the “scientist”; engaging the public versus publishing
peer-reviewed articles and winning grants; and building expectations versus overhyping the science reveal the difficult choices scientists in the modern world have to make over the potential gains and risks of communicating science. We conclude that although scientists' participation in public
debates is often encouraged, the rewards of such engagement remain. Moreover, this participation can detrimentally affect scientists' careers.
No Reference information available - sign in for access.
No Citation information available - sign in for access.
No Supplementary Data.
No Article Media
Document Type: Research Article
Centre for Biomedicine & Society, Department of Sociology & Communications Brunel University, Kingston Lane, UxbridgeMiddlesex, UK
Department of Education & Professional Studies,King's College London, Franklin-Wilkins Building, Waterloo RoadLondon, UK
Publication date: December 1, 2012
More about this publication?