IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/scippl/v41y2014i4p480-492..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Upstream public engagement, downstream policy-making? The Brain Imaging Dialogue as a community of inquiry

Author

Listed:
  • Oliver Escobar

Abstract

UK science and policy networks increasingly advocate ‘upstream public engagement’, that is, early public deliberation around potentially controversial science and technology. In the last two decades, neuroscience has advanced considerably, and non-medical uses of brain imaging technologies (BIT) are now raising substantial concerns. The 2010 Brain Imaging Dialogue (BID) brought together scientists, health practitioners, sociologists, philosophers, ethicists, religious representatives, citizens, policy-makers and legal experts to deliberate on non-medical uses of BIT. I present the BID as a community of inquiry that sought to stimulate policy deliberation in Scotland. The paper tells the story of the process from the perspective of the public engagement practitioners who organised it, drawing lessons about the community of inquiry method and concluding with reflections on the challenges of connecting upstream engagement to ongoing policy-making. Taking cues from practitioners’ experiences, I propose an institutional mechanism for the uptake of outputs from deliberative processes.

Suggested Citation

  • Oliver Escobar, 2014. "Upstream public engagement, downstream policy-making? The Brain Imaging Dialogue as a community of inquiry," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 41(4), pages 480-492.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:scippl:v:41:y:2014:i:4:p:480-492.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/scipol/sct073
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Joshua B Cohen, 2022. "Institutionalizing public engagement in research and innovation: Toward the construction of institutional entrepreneurial collectives [Limits of Decentered Governance in Science-society Policies]," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 49(5), pages 673-685.
    2. Beatriz Barros & Ana Fernández-Zubieta & Raul Fidalgo-Merino & Francisco Triguero, 2018. "Scientific knowledge percolation process and social impact: A case study on the biotechnology and microbiology perceptions on Twitter," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 45(6), pages 804-814.
    3. Jennifer Garard & Larissa Koch & Martin Kowarsch, 2018. "Elements of success in multi-stakeholder deliberation platforms," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 4(1), pages 1-16, December.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:scippl:v:41:y:2014:i:4:p:480-492.. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/spp .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.