Natasha Burns*, University of Central Lancashire, Preston, United Kingdom Track: Practice Presentation Topic: 2.0 Research methodology Presentation Type: Oral presentation Submission Type: Single Presentation Building: MECC Room: 0.8 Rome Date: 2010-11-29 11:00 AM – 12:30 PM Last modified: 2010-09-21

If you are the presenter of this abstract (or if you cite this abstract in a talk or on a poster), please show the QR code in your slide or poster (QR code contains this URL).

This panel is lead by the Erasmus Mundus Action 4 Project Globalising European Bioethics as part of their general work to bring European bioethics to a wider audience.

Web 2.0 technologies and the networks, knowledge base and communities that create promote a construction of openness which seems alien to traditional academic, scientific and medical paradigms. Yet, in reality it may be that the platforms and technologies that characterise the term “Web 2.0” provides a solution to a series of problems that have plagued these communities for some time. That is they provide the possible mechanism for genuine public engagement.

Increasingly questions are being asked of scientists, medical professionals and ethicist therefore it is essential that we have effective tools at our disposal in order to fully engage with the public. This means more than simply educating the public, and the weaknesses of the so-called deficit model been well documented in both academic and policy circles. An editorial in Science explained the problem:

“Simply trying to educate the public about specific science-based issues is not working…We need to move beyond what too often has been seen as a paternalistic stance. We need to engage the public in a more open and honest bidirectional dialogue about science and technology.”

Linked with this, is a realisation within some areas of bioethical theory and practice that there is a greater need to explore policy questions in pursuit of answers that address the concerns of the individuals affected by medicine, science and technology. Matti Häyry concluded that:

“If the decisions reached are truly acceptable to all those involved, the initial concerns have effectively been accounted for. But if some, or many, people are still concerned, repeated or additional philosophical arguments are not the answer. Perhaps others can suggest what is.”

As such, there is a need to find new paradigms for the communication and exploration of issues and concerns raised by medicine and science. Against this background the panel will present five possible future directions for public engagement with medicine and science, with the caveat that: “solving the engagement problem by asking scientists and ethicists to independently become experts at social media is unlikely to be a far-reaching or successful solution”.