IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/scippl/v37y2010i9p703-718.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

‘How do we know it's not been done yet?!’ Trust, trust building and regulation in stem cell research

Author

Listed:
  • Stephen R Bates
  • Wendy Faulkner
  • Sarah Parry
  • Sarah Cunningham-Burley

Abstract

Public unease that stem cell research (SCR) may be proceeding somewhat unfettered raises issues about links between trust in and regulation of science/scientists, with wider relevance to a policy drive to (re)build public trust in science. This paper analyses three themes: different objects of trust in science (individuals, institutions and wider context); links between these objects of trust and potential roles for regulation in trust building; and trust building as a performative practice. The paper draws empirically on deliberations on trust and regulation in SCR at a UK public engagement event. Our findings demonstrate that dialogic encounters between scientists and wider publics can generate considerable openness and sophistication, with participants capable of deliberating on the multifaceted nature of ‘trust’ and grappling with complex and challenging issues. We reflect on the circumstances in which regulation might enhance public trust in science, on the possible role of public engagement in trust building, and on calls for greater institutional reflexivity by scientists. Copyright , Beech Tree Publishing.

Suggested Citation

  • Stephen R Bates & Wendy Faulkner & Sarah Parry & Sarah Cunningham-Burley, 2010. "‘How do we know it's not been done yet?!’ Trust, trust building and regulation in stem cell research," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 37(9), pages 703-718, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:scippl:v:37:y:2010:i:9:p:703-718
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/spp/37.9.703
    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.

    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:37:y:2010:i:9:p:703-718. 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.