The discussion presented here lies within the multicenter research project “Eliminate Dengue: our challenge”. Originally from Australia, the project involves the strategy of infecting the mosquito Aedes aegypti with the bacterium Wolbachia and releasing these Understanding of Science (PUS) and Engagement in Science (ES) approach. In theory, these infected mosquitoes into the environment. The project situates Community Engagement (CE) as a vital dimension of the initiative, since the acceptance of the population is a key dimension of the program. In fact, recent years have witness the resurgence of interest in the engagement and participation of the public in relation to the decision making of scientific research, regulatory processes, policies and programs, especially in the biosciences. Research has shown that for a technical-scientific innovation to be successful it must involve a social dimension, be attentive and autonomous regarding the use and consequences of the new knowledge generated. There is a wide variation in the definition of what constitutes community engagement and what are the motivations behind the projects that incorporate it. The emphasis on dialogue, information sharing, collaboration and shared decision making makes Community Engagement strategies close to the Public strategies which advocate effective forms of involvement and participation of society in science. Therefore, the questions that guide this study are: Do these concepts share some research orientation? Do they come from similar theoretical backgrounds (authors, institutions, subjects of interest)? As an exploratory study, a review of the scientific literature was conducted in Biological Abstract, EMBASE, and Web of Science. The records recovery for each key word were as follow: 1.110 for CE, 311 for PUS and 60 for ES. References were organized and analyzed into a text mining software. A predominance of production by the United States, England, Canada and Australia was shown. Their studies are conducted by different institutions, evidencing little dialogue between them. The field of health has a strong presence in the three traditions, with due particularities. EC has a predominance of clinical research and PUS begins to appear in public health. ES focuses mainly on nanotechnology and there are indications of a convergence towards education and other similar areas. Further analysis should point to synergies which strengthen the convergence of these fields.

">
 [PCST]
PCST Network

Public Communication of Science and Technology

 

Possible dialogues between public understanding of science and community engagement in health research
The case of dengue

Carla Sales   Fundação Oswaldo Cruz, Brazil

Denise Pimenta   Fundação Oswaldo Cruz, Brazil

Maria Guimarães   Fundação Oswaldo Cruz, Brazil

The discussion presented here lies within the multicenter research project “Eliminate Dengue: our challenge”. Originally from Australia, the project involves the strategy of infecting the mosquito Aedes aegypti with the bacterium Wolbachia and releasing these Understanding of Science (PUS) and Engagement in Science (ES) approach. In theory, these infected mosquitoes into the environment. The project situates Community Engagement (CE) as a vital dimension of the initiative, since the acceptance of the population is a key dimension of the program. In fact, recent years have witness the resurgence of interest in the engagement and participation of the public in relation to the decision making of scientific research, regulatory processes, policies and programs, especially in the biosciences. Research has shown that for a technical-scientific innovation to be successful it must involve a social dimension, be attentive and autonomous regarding the use and consequences of the new knowledge generated. There is a wide variation in the definition of what constitutes community engagement and what are the motivations behind the projects that incorporate it. The emphasis on dialogue, information sharing, collaboration and shared decision making makes Community Engagement strategies close to the Public strategies which advocate effective forms of involvement and participation of society in science. Therefore, the questions that guide this study are: Do these concepts share some research orientation? Do they come from similar theoretical backgrounds (authors, institutions, subjects of interest)? As an exploratory study, a review of the scientific literature was conducted in Biological Abstract, EMBASE, and Web of Science. The records recovery for each key word were as follow: 1.110 for CE, 311 for PUS and 60 for ES. References were organized and analyzed into a text mining software. A predominance of production by the United States, England, Canada and Australia was shown. Their studies are conducted by different institutions, evidencing little dialogue between them. The field of health has a strong presence in the three traditions, with due particularities. EC has a predominance of clinical research and PUS begins to appear in public health. ES focuses mainly on nanotechnology and there are indications of a convergence towards education and other similar areas. Further analysis should point to synergies which strengthen the convergence of these fields.

A copy of the full paper has not yet been submitted.

BACK TO TOP