Sustainable solutions and political regulation require public discussions, engagement,
and dialogue at the interfaces between science and society. The communication and
medialization of innovative knowledge is a key aspect for societal engagement, but
also a major source of distortion. Knowledge about bio-objects, generated from biomedical
and biotechnical research, causes uncertainty and societal controversies about ethics
and risk, and new communicative strategies are required to face complex and potentially
controversial topics generated by biology innovation, such as in vitro fertilization
(IVF), stem cell research, gene therapy, (xeno-) transplantation, biobank research,
recombinant pharmaceutics, etc. The amount of innovative knowledge is constantly increasing,
and because of the internet, and Open Access initiatives, it is mostly freely available.
However, the abundance of information available on the web, together with the fact
that almost everybody can distribute information of varying quality on social online
media, often leads to an overflow of communication and the situation of communication
impasses. The delegation of the public communication of innovative scientific knowledge
to public relations (PR) experts adds a further source of distortion in the communication
process. Although communication aims at dialogue, this is frequently not achieved
due to the variety of communicators involved and their different goals.
In contrast to former discussions focusing on dialogue between science, policy makers,
and the public, the aim of this paper was to focus on the broader communicative situation
related to the innovative knowledge in general and bio-objects in particular and to
introduce the concept of Knowledge Landscapes to conceptually capture the present
communicative situation. Knowledge Landscapes contain all the different communicators
in these fields, the content communicated, and the pathways used for communication.
We argue that today the Knowledge Landscapes appear as a confusing sites for gaining
information and knowledge, reflecting current changes in the communication infrastructure,
research, and political system and industry, and that we need physical and virtual
communicative spaces where dialogue seeks to understand and critically discuss the
content distributed in the Knowledge Landscapes. We also need to acknowledge that
knowledge communication is vital for not only democratic advances and decision making
processes, but it is also infused in the everyday life, delivering the democratic
principles to all spheres of society, in particular to the field of medicine and health
care, not the least due to the new paradigm referred to as personalized medicine.
The presence and complexity of the scientific issues in the Knowledge Landscapes are
in need of clarification and processing in an open-ended dialogue to gain a qualified
perception of the Knowledge Landscape itself, and we need permanent sites for public
reflection. An informed perception of Knowledge Landscapes and dialogue does not eradicate
disagreement and controversy, but it is a prerequisite for a dynamic and democratic
process as well as for dialogue itself. Science centers and museums serving as a local
agora are proposed as one such potential arena, representing a safe space for difficult
conversations where science and society can meet and engage in dialogue. The dialogue-based
science communication should result in the benefits of citizens; make sure that decision
making is legitimate; inform decision-makers about public opinion (support as well
as resistance); and guarantee that dynamic and broad dialogues (processes) are established
so that new and inventive strategies can be identified and developed.
The need to communicate innovative knowledge
The amount of newly generated scientific information increases constantly. In parallel
there is a general abundance of all kinds of information offered to citizens, which
is enabled through advances in information technologies and the wide availability
of data stored on the internet. Together with the increase in available information,
there is an advance of knowledge within all disciplines. This newly generated knowledge
is critical for the further development of our society. We refer to this subset of
new knowledge as innovative knowledge, emphasizing its importance to maintain the
vitality of society and contribute to knowledge driven economies. “Bio-objects” derive
from innovative knowledge and are generated through the “bio-objectification” process
continuously negotiated in the intersection of science, politics, and society (1,2).
As such, their representation through communication is crucial (3). Bio-objects are
defined as biological entities which escape classifications, and subsequently stir
public responses to resolve this classification conflict. A suitable example is the
classification of human embryos, which are results of in vitro fertilization processes,
but left as a surplus of the procedure. Being stored in freezers across the world,
they escape classification which would indicate how to handle them. It remains unclear
whether they should be considered as human beings, or human samples, or biomaterial
with economic value, or just biological waste. They could be used to generate new
human beings, or human embryonic stem cells, they could be kept in the freezer forever,
or be discarded. It is unclear whether they belong to the parents, to the hospital,
or to the society. This example shows the contextually bound meaning of bio-objects,
and a fracture between the application of new knowledge and society. As the governance
of bio-objects depends on democratic mechanisms, this identification conflict cannot
be solved among professionals and selected institutions alone (4). The stakeholders
should already at early stages be involved in a public dialogue that facilitates responsible
research and innovation (RRI), responding to societal needs, requirements, and desires
(5).
New knowledge-communication strategies
Knowledge generated from biomedical and biotechnical research is complex, and to gain
legitimacy in decision making and governance questions, public acceptance is a key
challenge in democratic societies. Different strategies are applied to involve the
public, meet democratic challenges, and gain legitimate decisions and frameworks regarding
development, distribution, and commercialization of innovative science and bio-objects
(eg, the Eurobarometer surveys on science and technology) (6). In addition, sustainable
solutions and political regulation are in need of thorough discussions to both collect
and develop perspectives and strategies. As such, communication with the public is
not a one way street but ideally a dynamic dialogue that produces new insights into
the issues on the agenda. To establish dialogue at the interfaces between science
and society, new arenas have been developed. For example, the Sciencewise Expert Resource
Centre – the UK’s national center for public dialogue in policy making involving science
and technology issues (
http://www.sciencewise-erc.org.uk/
) was established in 2007. It exemplifies the political need and societal urge for
a better and more dynamic and productive interaction between policymakers and the
public to gain informed policy decisions involving science and technology issues.
In this context, Mohr et al (7) emphasize how the public should be approached in plural,
as publics, through dynamic dialogue where both interest groups and not yet involved
individuals are invited on board, not only for the sake of democracy, but for the
sake of collecting and developing a broad and relevant understanding of what is at
stake and to identify possible solutions and strategies.
In this paper we launch the term Knowledge Landscapes and define it as the present
communicative situation for innovative knowledge in general and bio-objects in particular,
containing all the different communicators in these fields, the content communicated,
and the pathways used for communication. We argue that today, Knowledge Landscapes
appear as confusing sites for gaining information and knowledge, and we argue that
there is a present need for arenas where dialogue on knowledge and innovative science
and bio-objects can be established.
Knowledge Landscape challenges
The abundance of information available on the web, together with the fact that almost
everybody can distribute information of varying quality via online media (eg, social
networks), often leads to an overflow of data and the situation of communication impasses.
The need for dialogue and communication regarding innovative science, new technology,
and bio-objects goes hand in hand with an urgent need to establish an open ended dialogue
to gain a qualified perception of the knowledge. To achieve this we need to identify
arenas where these issues can be discussed, not once or as a unique happening but
as permanent sites for public reflection. The debate is needed not for policy reasons,
but because of the presence and complexity of the scientific issues in a need of clarification
and processing. We therefore argue for the creation of communicative spaces where
the consequences of innovative knowledge could be discussed without the distortions
mentioned before. In such a Knowledge Landscape actors and stakeholders from various
arenas (science, the public, industry, politics etc) should be able to meet and discuss
freely and equally. In this context, societal dialogue will imply epistemological
clarifications, ie, clarification of how scientific knowledge (not only scientific
results) is constructed. This will produce a transparent communication that will avoid
misunderstanding and confusion, and make a dialogue a joint interpretative project.
Hermeneutical ideals from both Habermas and Gadamer underline the fundamental importance
of communication and the necessity of reciprocal understanding for conversation, dialogue,
and interpretation to be real/true (in contrast to untrue, ie, represent misunderstandings
and confusion) (8,9). Science centers and museums serving as a local agora are here
proposed as one such potential space where science and society could meet and engage
in true dialogue. However, current changes in the communication infrastructure, industry,
research, and political system require the creation of more such physical and virtual
spaces where the results and consequences of innovative knowledge can be discussed
between scientists and other members of society.
Knowledge Landscapes and the “medialization” of science
A central topic in the scholarly investigation of science-society relationship is
the “medialization” of science (10). Medialization means that science increasingly
comes under pressure to publicly legitimize itself, which results in an increasing
orientation on the public communication of science. Due to more public scrutiny, science
is held responsible and accountable, eg, for public research funds it receives. This
process comes into play when researchers compete for resources, visibility, and public
attention with one another, but also with other subject areas and actors. In this
situation most universities and research organizations employ public relations (PR)
experts to professionalize and manage their interactions with various audiences, but
also especially with the mass media. As the degree of the medialization of science
and research increases, the more important becomes the role of public relations management
for the scientific institutions (11). This also has an influence on how and on what
terms innovative scientific knowledge is publicized. The most central aim of science
PR is the public legitimization of the research organization to secure the resources
that the organization needs. To do so, they have to demonstrate usefulness, excellence,
and public support to their funders and society as a whole. In this sense, public
relations management is seen as an instrument to secure the autonomy of scientific
organizations.
However, this development has some unintended side-effects. In the context of PR work,
the meaning and value of scientific knowledge can change. For instance, a basic researcher
in the neurosciences stressed that the chances for getting public attention increase
if a potential medical applicability of their research is mentioned in press releases:
“…it depends on the audience, but in press releases it [our research] is always, always
disease-relevant” (12).
If the innovative knowledge about bio-objects is communicated with the help of PR
experts, the meaning of the knowledge may be transformed and often value is added.
This is most often the case when potential medical or other applications are stressed
in press releases. The “marketing” of knowledge in that way can lead to false hopes
or unfounded fears, but also to ill-informed decisions on matters of health (13).
These applications stressed in press releases were not necessarily of interest for
the scientists who conducted the research in the first place or even the cause of
basic research. Societal and also economic values are ascribed to the innovative knowledge
that leads to applications or patents, also to “sell” the knowledge to other actors
than scientists. It is likely that different actors and stakeholders ascribe different
meanings, values, and intentions to the innovative knowledge coming from biotechnological
research. This process of adding potential value to the innovative knowledge in many
cases creates distortions to the original knowledge, as the potential value starts
to be more important than the actual content. In addition, skillful PR can add desired
values to any content, entering in the marketing battle, which adds to the uncertainty
which piece of knowledge is really relevant to the user, citizen, or patient.
Scenarios of innovative knowledge communication
Conferences and workshops, journals, books, seminars, and lectures are common ways
of communicating new knowledge in the scientific community. The public is usually
excluded here. New options for communications, which have become more and more important,
are Open Access journals and public events at universities and research institutions,
suited for various publics. Further mediated distribution of scientific knowledge
is done through popularized books and lectures, TV-programs, print media, and radio,
which enables non specialists to consume and learn about innovative knowledge in their
spare time and in their private life. Further complexity is added by the nature of
social online media, such as social online networks (for example Facebook), and blogs
and micro-blogs (eg, Twitter). The social online-video network YouTube is a particularly
prominent example. It is a useful tool for scientific knowledge dissemination (eg,
lectures, interviews etc.), but at the same time it is also used by amateurs or interest
groups (including patient groups, religious groups, and political sub-groups etc)
to promote their ideas and views. On YouTube all contributors are presented equally,
little or no censorship is taking place, and there is no inwards hierarchy regarding
scientific accuracy and validity of the content. For example, concerning stem cells,
one will find videos of knowledgeable scientists, side by side to videos promoting
unapproved experimental stem cell-treatments that can be risky and harmful for patients.
The combination of research, marketing, conspiracy, speculation, and wrongful assumptions,
which can be found on the web, should be perceived as such: a mixture of incompatible
and contradictory messages distributed through Open Knowledge Distribution. Receiving
information, though one can sometimes communicate through feedback or chat options,
is different from educational settings where conversation and dialogue facilitate
tools that help the individual elaborate, understand, and integrate new knowledge,
as well as recognize which possibilities and limitation this knowledge entails.
At first sight, Open Knowledge Distribution is a positive development providing information
to everyone. It is an important pathway for disseminating knowledge, but also, as
described above, a problem. Regarding bio-objects, Open Knowledge Distribution contributes
to bio-objectification processes. The results though, can represent both confusion
and misunderstandings, leading to controversies about bio-objects that represent new
challenges and require a new quality of communication, where the establishment of
communicating arenas is a given priority.
The new communication quality implies insights into the actors, content, agendas,
and communication pathways in the Knowledge Landscapes. The Knowledge Landscapes in
the future should contain a variety of overlapping arenas (eg, academic, cultural
educational and governing institutions, industry, media, NGOs, interest groups, homepages
of individual agents etc.), where a variety of communicative pathways are established
and new ones continuously develop. The different arenas in the Knowledge Landscapes
are not strictly separated, and the overlaps make it necessary to approach communication
in this landscape as a whole. Described in terms of a landscape, the communication
paths for bio-objects constitute a complex and varied scenario where dissemination
of knowledge is sent and received, discussed, used, and consumed by individuals both
inside and outside of academic institutions. What we suggest is to push forward the
need for a dialogue that includes the public, and aims at establishing a continuous
and dynamic dialogue that seeks to understand and critically discusses the content
distributed in the Knowledge Landscapes. If such a dialogue succeeds, the Knowledge
Landscapes will no longer appear as a bare chaos or anarchy (arrows being shot out
more or less blindly) but as representing interrelated dynamic processes of communication.
An informed perception of Knowledge Landscapes and dialogue does not eradicate disagreement
and controversy, but it is a prerequisite for a dynamic and democratic process as
well as for dialogue itself. Ideally, a Knowledge Landscape represents a dynamic area
where experts and various publics can express their heterogeneous natures and interact,
evolve, exchange, and change perspectives in inclusive dialogues (7,14).
Because the communicative pathways of bio-objects are many, overlapping and interacting,
the Knowledge Landscape of communicative pathways can be difficult to grasp. If the
publics are to get hold on the communicative pathways a prerequisite is transparency.
Due to strategic and political implications, this might not always be possible as
sometimes some actors will not be willing to participate. Because of the political
and strategic implications, and due to the complexity of the dynamics involved in
the communication of bio-objects, there is a need for qualified research, innovative
applications, and individuals who have the time and competence to organize and analyze
the complexity of the communicative landscape of innovative knowledge.
Bio-objects and communication issues
Currently there are many ways to publish and share the information concerning the
innovative knowledge, resulting in an information overflow. Although information is
widely available for free and is abundant, selecting and applying the relevant knowledge
may become quite difficult and includes public controversies regarding priorities,
ethics, and risk handling, in addition to the fact that scientists themselves represent
different agendas, viewpoints, and policies. We suggest that the complex interrelations
and dynamics of the Knowledge Landscapes, the complexity of the issues presented and
discussed above, together with the discrepancy in the generation of innovative knowledge
disrupt dialogue and result in novel societal phenomena. The process of bio-objectification
is an illuminating example of the communication impasse generating new issues, including
the need for arenas for communication and debates. Bio-objects are distributed but
also identified, reshaped, and invented in the Knowledge Landscapes, taking the form
of information, policy, politics, critique, rumors as well as “urban myths.” Moreover,
we suggest that the inappropriate communication of knowledge is implicated in the
generation of the controversies concerning bio-objects and therefore has a relevant
role in the bio-objectification process itself.
Although the innovative knowledge is needed and indeed generated, the wide availability
of data alone does not correspond to the wide availability of knowledge. The new technologies
and new approaches require a specialized skillset to understand and apply the generated
innovation. Therefore, we face a paradox of widely available information including
also the innovative knowledge, but still those having the skillset to identify and
use the knowledge are rare. As a consequence there is a combination of relevant and
misguided doubts and fears about bio-technological and biomedical innovation because
of an information overload in the Knowledge Landscapes. The complexity embedded in
new knowledge includes questions regarding priorities, ethics, and risk handling,
implementation of the new knowledge in clinical settings, industry, agriculture, policies,
and politics etc. The application of innovative knowledge turns out to be challenging
and controversial, represents conflicts of interests and is in need of dialogue to
clarify misunderstandings and unnecessary delays in transferring the new knowledge
into technologies to the benefits of citizens; make sure that decision making is legitimate;
inform decision-makers about public opinion (support as well as resistance); guarantee
that dynamic and broad dialogues (processes) are established, so that new and inventive
strategies can be identified and developed.
Museums as an agora of communication
Among the various arenas for the communication of science innovation, science museums
and science centers are important institutions where visitors can learn, play, talk,
and think. Exhibits offer to citizens of every age opportunities for learning science
with a social dimension as well as with the relevant content knowledge (15). Creating
scientific citizenship, where every citizen has rights and responsibilities related
to the knowledge distribution and usage, is a crucial component of museums’ new mission.
Achieving biological- and biomedical-citizenships would enable citizens to acquire
the necessary capability to face the complex issues generated by biology and biomedical
innovations, and thus enable them to navigate in the Knowledge Landscapes (16).
Bio-objects, with their overload of social issues, are suitable topics to be proposed
to the public in museums and science centers. The possible formats to use are permanent
and temporary exhibitions as well as new tools for contemporary scientific museology
(science-theater, open-door laboratories, nights at the museum, scientific cafes,
and “Science in the Street” events), which are open to influences from literature,
philosophy, social sciences and arts (17). Though reflecting societal events, trends,
and needs, neither of these options of present museology is restricted to the task
of clarifying issues of acute urgency to policymakers. Accordingly, science museums
of new conception, in addition to their mission to promote the public understanding
and engagement on major conceptual advances in the natural and life sciences, are
becoming recognized “agora,” ie, central meeting points where all can engage in science
innovations, learn, and share expertise and experience. Their event programs are increasingly
focusing on debates, dialogues, and public interactions with science and society related
aspects, rather than the more traditional public lecture format. In addition, on the
basis of their networks, museums can reach large numbers of people on a physical territory
but also in virtual spaces, and thus become a vital arena for engaging various publics
and local communities in a dialogue about innovative knowledge. As already stated
by the Toronto Declaration signed in 2008 by four-hundred science centers and museums
across the world, museums present themselves to society as “safe places for difficult
conversations,” ie, “places where controversial issues related to the ethical, social
and economic impact of research and of new technologies can be discussed in an open
and informed way” (18,19). Museums are arenas where knowledge transfer and dialogue
can take place between those producing innovative knowledge (eg, scientists and researchers)
and those using it (eg, enterprises, policy makers, citizens) (20). The direct contact
among stakeholders could also avoid the distortions, which are often the result of
mediated communications. In addition to this general goal, we want to encourage museums
to explicitly address challenges related to the complexity of the Knowledge Landscapes.
Knowledge Landscapes and personalized medicine
In today’s globalized and individualized society, the competence of critical thinking
is a key issue for citizen, and for society it should be a key task to facilitate
arenas where this competence can be acquired and continuously updated and developed.
This should enable them to decipher the complex situation of the Knowledge Landscapes,
where content and communication paths can be contextualized, premises and interrelations
can be made visible, and content can be more properly understood. This task is important
because knowledge communication is vital for, not only democratic advances, and decision
making processes, but it is also infused in the everyday life, delivering the democratic
principles to all spheres of society. This knowledge-based democratization applies
in particular to the field of medicine and health care. A new paradigm referred to
as personalized medicine appears to be a highlight of the new technologically based
health system. If properly communicated, the medical knowledge stops to be a privilege
of the professionals, turning into a tool for those needing help. The idea of this
new system of personalized medicine is to include the patient in decision-making processes
(patient-centered medicine), contributing to the diagnosis and the treatment of the
patient as a whole (person-centered medicine). Personalized medicine does not downgrade
the need for professional expertise, which would indeed still be the responsibility
of the specialized experts, but empowers the patients to pave their ways to health
and well-being and subsequently to make responsible choices in managing their lives.
This dialogue-based landscape of personalized medicine is another example of the necessary
improvement of our communication modalities, and it underlines the importance of a
proper and critical understanding of innovative and biomedical knowledge (21).
Conclusion
The importance of appropriate and shared communication within Knowledge Landscapes
and the necessity of engaging citizens in all phases of their life in a dialogue are
indispensable tools needed for the functioning and advancement of today’s society.
To achieve this, particular care should be given by all stakeholders to be involved
in the dialogue, and by society to facilitate arenas within Knowledge Landscapes.
This should enable the flow and exchange of knowledge and its use for the benefit
of economy, health system, democracy, and society in general.