Synthetic gene drive approaches are nascent technologies with potential applicability for pest control for conservation purposes. Responsible science mandates that society be engaged in a dialogue over new technology, particularly where there exist global ramifications as with gene drive. We hypothesize that public attitudes towards gene drive are not formed on scientific knowledge or demographics alone, but are heavily influenced by underlying worldviews, which encapsulate a broad and interactive system of attitudes, beliefs, and values. To test this, we conducted a national survey in New Zealand (n = 8199) and found that respondents clustered into four distinct segments with underlying worldviews, better able to explain attitudes toward gene drive than either the participants' scientific knowledge or other explanatory factors such demographics, political ideology or religiosity. We found that the use of gene drive for biodiversity conservation currently has moderate (32%) levels of support in New Zealand but that varied substantially across the four segments. Should gene drive become a technically viable approach for pest control, understanding the worldviews that shape public decision-making can guide a more empathetic engagement process and empower society to participate in informed decision-making about if and how gene drive should be used for conservation purposes.

The proponents of responsible innovation (RI) have often opened their discussions with the reassurance that while they are against irresponsible innovation, they are not advocating irresponsible stagnation. In the two-by-two matrix generally used to illustrate this model of innovation, the quadrant for responsible stagnation has so far gone largely unmentioned, let alone explored. This paper draws on existing real-world cases to examine what arguments drawn from ecological economics might contribute to the discussion of RI. It questions the present growth-driven paradigm and asks whether opening the black box of ‘responsible stagnation' might also open the door for a reasoned discussion about resource consumption and pace of development in over-productive or too-risky sectors and technologies, as an intrinsic part of responsible innovation, rather than its opposite.

Participatory science communication featured in several sessions and individual papers at the 2021 online conference of the Public Communication of Science and Technology (PCST) Network. This coverage recognises the drive away from linear communication to more participatory forms of science communication. In this special edition we present practice insights, papers and essays that explore participatory science communication. These contributions explore definitions, processes and describe case-studies of participatory science communication which involve a variety of publics, from young school students to Indigenous groups to farmers. In this introductory editorial we reflect on the papers, describe the growth of a participatory approach as part of the continuing evolution of science communication; explore a definition for participatory science communication; and consider some of the key concepts and issues that emerged.

In this article, we suggest that three concepts from cultural and media studies might be useful for analysing the ways audiences are constructed in science communication: that media are immanent to society, media are multiple and various, and audiences are active. This article uses those concepts, along with insights from Science and Technology Studies (STS), to examine the category of ‘the disengaged’ within science communication. This article deals with the contrast between ‘common sense’ and scholarly ideas of media and audiences in the field of cultural and media studies. It compares the ‘common sense’ with scholarly ideas of science publics from STS. We conclude that it may be time to reconsider the ontology of publics and the disengaged for science communication.

Trust in science and scientists (TSS) is an increasingly important topic with respect to how science is applied within society. However, its role regarding specific issues may vary depending upon other psychosocial factors. In this study, we investigated how trust interacts with social attitudes and motivations to shape views on scientific issues in New Zealand (N = 8,199; 74.7% New Zealand European, 55.1% female). The study went beyond TSS by including broader institutional trust alongside measures relating to support for inequality, status quo preservation and fear of the unknown. We focused on their effects on three issues: vaccines, climate change and genetic technology (gene drive). Although TSS was strongly associated with lower vaccine skepticism (B = -0.497, p < 0.01), and moderate support for gene drive (B = 0.231, p < 0.01), it had no meaningful effect on climate skepticism. Furthermore, trust differentially mediated the relationship between social motivations and responses to all three issues. Trust in science and scientists is therefore unlikely to represent a one-size-fits-all variable. We conclude that future research should consider what effects trust in institutions and TSS have with social attitudes and motivations over a range of technologies across the sciences.