Upstream Engagement

Upstream engagement is a catchphrase referring to recent developments that attempt to bring members of the (multiple) publics and stakeholders together in dialogue about emerging technologies, before research and development (R&D) trajectories are established. Science and technology (S&T) communicators will be familiar with calls for them to move beyond the deficit model of communication (in which differences in perspective between scientists and the public were believed to be solely because of the public's lack of understanding of science). More science “education” was then prescribed to bring the views of the public closer to that of the scientists rather than exploring the contextual issues the members of the public might have been considering. Yet two-way dialogue in the form of upstream engagement, although a simple notion, is difficult to achieve. Upstream engagement is a contested matter both in concept and practice, not only because of the newness of it, but because of the dearth of successful examples and heavy reliance on ideal scenarios. In this entry, after discussing some key aspects of upstream engagement, an example of the Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering's (RS/ RAEng) 2003 inquiry Nanoscience and Nano-technologies will be provided to illustrate some of these key aspects in action and then lead to a section discussion of some significant challenges to “upstreaming” public engagement.

Upstream engagement could be summarized as dialogue and deliberation that includes the “publics” and related interest groups, relevant science communities, and policymakers about potentially disruptive or controversial technologies at an early stage of the research and development process and in advance of significant applications, or widespread public knowledge, in a way that has the potential to influence the technology trajectories.

This description highlights three key aspects of the notion of upstream engagement, in addition to public involvement. First, policy community involvement is vital to foster policy impacts. Second, science communities should be involved in a way that allows for mutual sharing and learning to occur between publics and scientists. Finally, the processes and timing of the dialogue should be such that there is genuine potential to influence technology trajectories.

What this means is that a new type of interaction is proposed; merely moving “downstream” (postproduct impact) questions to an earlier point [Page 926]in the technology development cycle will not fulfill upstream goals. Rather than focusing on how science and technology will have impact on society, which traditionally happens in downstream communication, upstream engagement means assessing possible interactions between the technology and society. It is a small but significant word change, but without the emphasis on interactions rather than impacts, the roles of the various publics are likely to be confined to deliberating issues that surround the postproduction phase. Addressing interactions, on the other hand, means accessing how suitable the technologies might be for society (rather than assuming that society will passively accept the technologies). Taken seriously, this would provide an opportunity to debate wider visions of the relationship between technology and society. Upstream engagement may thus provide a means of focusing on topics that typically remain outside many more traditional discussions of the trajectory and conduct of science. Such discussion might include the power relations a technology embodies, along with the balance between corporate and civil society interests and control.

...