This document summarizes a paper presented at the 12th International Public Communication of Science and Technology Conference in April 2012. The paper examines how publics form around emerging technologies, distinguishing between "upstream" and "downstream" engagement. Upstream engagement occurs early in technology development when implications are unclear, allowing organizers more control over publics. Downstream engagement happens when technologies are tangible, so publics are more likely to emerge from civil society in response to specific impacts. The paper uses two Scottish renewable energy cases to illustrate how publics emerge in response to local wind farms and concerns over global biomass sourcing. While organizers can shape upstream publics, downstream technologies make wider socio-technical networks and uninvited publics more

1. Summary of paper presented to the 12th International Public Communication of Science and
Technology Conference. 18th – 20th April 2012 Florence, Italy.
Making technologies and their publics visible in science communication: the
case of low-carbon technology
Beverley Gibbs and Sujatha Raman
Institute for Science in Society
School of Sociology & Social Policy
University of Nottingham. UK
In recent years, UK government, research funders, learned societies and industry have
sponsored numerous dedicated initiatives to engage publics around so-called emerging
technologies. These include various “top-down” attempts to communicate basic scientific
knowledge, convey enthusiasm about research and possibilities for future technological
applications (especially common in the biomedical domain) and increasingly, communicate
science related to emerging collective problems (climate change especially). They also
include ostensibly more interactive efforts, such as public dialogues on topics such as GM
crops, stem cells and nanoscience.
These efforts have been widely studied as attempts to create or constitute publics around
science and technology in specific ways that are open to question (e.g. Irwin 2001, Irwin
2006, Martin 2008, Michael 2009, Mohr 2011). By contrast, the ‘self-creation’ or emergence
of active publics has traditionally not been considered in the public engagement literature,
though it has been studied under the rubric of social movement studies, or latterly,
citizenship (e.g. Elam & Bertilsson 2003, Hess 2010, Walker et.al. 2007). Active publics
have, however, begun to impact on discussions of public engagement since 2003’s GM
Nation? where self-selected, highly motivated individuals armed with various critiques of GM
crops attended open events organised to discuss the possibility of commercialising GM, and
overturned all ‘normal’ expectations of how such public dialogues should be run. In light of
critiques by policymakers and dialogue evaluators that these ‘uninvited’ publics were
unrepresentative of the general public, policy expectations of public dialogue as a space
meant only for ‘innocent citizens’ have in turn been critically examined (Lezaun and Soneryd
2007, Wynne 2007).
Therefore the question we ask here is twofold. Firstly, how can we account for different ways
in which publics are constituted around science and technology? We suggest that
examining the socio-technical network around an imagined or existing technology can
illuminate the creation or emergence of publics (including those of the kind ‘unwanted’ or
‘uninvited’ by science policymakers or engagement practitioners). Secondly, we ask which
publics are made visible through these networks, suggesting that networks are bounded by
the actors within.
‘Upstream’ and ‘Downstream’ technologies
Our first step contrasts the differing nature of engagement that takes place ‘upstream’ (with
a ‘technology in principle’, where economic and physical configurations are yet to be

2. determined) and engagement ‘downstream’ (where economic, physical, technological and
social implications are readily apparent, with applications proximate or already in existence).
Upstream and Downstream Communication: Differing Challenges
• Upstream is unformed, conceptual • Downstream is tangible, here in the
world
• Publics are shadowy, unknown, not yet • Emerged publics more typical
emerged
• Engagement focuses on knowledge and • Engagement closely aligned with
risk enrolment (and marketing)
• Public voice via friendly science • Public voice often more agonistic with
engagement or carefully designed contested power, sometimes negotiated
formal dialogues via regulators, planning processes
• Consensus is an ideal to be pursued • Opposition can quickly become hostile
and entrenched
• Conflict often based on knowledge • Conflict focuses on the shape this
claims, sometimes innate values technology takes, and features of the
wider (socio-technical) network
• Engagement work can be carefully • Efforts to ‘stage-manage’ remain
designed - so can its publics
Our underpinning hypothesis is that where engagement is ‘upstream’, there is more
opportunity to carefully manage the engagement process and bring in the right sort of
publics (from the organisers’ standpoint). Even where there is significant controversy, there
is potential for ‘friendly’ engagement as in 2008’s UK stem cell dialogue (Mohr, Raman and
Elliott 2009). By contrast, where the technology is already evident, its tangibility or materiality
makes a difference. Efforts to stage-manage public proceedings persist but they’re more
likely to be disrupted by publics organised around the entanglements that structure the
technology. To illustrate some network aspects that shape the emergence of active publics,
we present two short cases based on renewable energy technology in Scotland. The first
draws on the case of wind energy to show how a perceived diffuse support for renewable
energy in principle can quickly become irrelevant in the face of a specific material proposal.
The second, on proposed biomass plants, shows networks wider than the local, as global
effects and publics are evoked during processes of opposition.
Downstream begets (some) publics, though still masks others? Wind energy in
Scotland
Scotland draws on a vast natural resource base (rich in wind and tidal energy) with some of
the most aggressive renewable energy targets in Europe. As a mature technology with

3. accessible entry costs, windpower has become a significant technology in harnessing this
resource and meeting targets - not without controversy. Emergent publics have coalesced
not so much around contested evidence for climate change, but around whether onshore
wind is the best solution, and around physical manifestations of particular developments.
Concerns span physical, procedural, commercial and political arenas – aspects which only
come to light when technologies approach implementation. Active publics have disrupted
numerous developments, expressing concerns about siting, scale, operating parameters,
development process, ownership and physical grid connection as well as more technically-
based issues such as intermittency. This explanation of the complexity of public response
can be contrasted with more general exhortations of the ‘green economy’, where technology
is considered unambiguously good. By taking seriously the behaviour of emergent publics,
we more fully see the nature and extent of the broader ‘socio-technical network’ opposition is
embedded in.
Expanding networks – and publics: the biomass case
However, the wind energy network made visible by active publics only goes so far. More
remote publics involved in producing materials that make up turbines are being made visible
in trade and financial press, with concern about China’s control over the ‘rare earth metals’
essential for producing many modern technologies including PV cells and wind turbines.
Interestingly, there is little discussion or elaboration of this in activism around Scottish wind
power.
This is in direct contrast to proposals for new biomass capacity in Scotland. Where the wind
energy case exemplifies local opposition and local concerns, the biomass case illustrates a
more global public being invoked. Additional to immediate misgivings about siting, scale and
local pollution, questions are also raised about where this biomass material comes from,
what impacts its extraction has on the remote region, and what ethical promises can be
given for the plant’s future operation.
So, do ‘technologies produce publics’?
We might say yes, though in a way that is highly dependent on context where publics differ
in origin and intent as well as composition and location. Publics created by a sponsor
around upstream technologies can be contrasted with publics that emerge from civil society
around near-market (downstream) technologies. Materiality makes a difference, and helps
unpack the ‘black box’ of technology, making the wider socio-technical network more visible.
However, this is an uneven ongoing process – in the low-carbon case, some parts of the
network (and its publics) remain relatively invisible (e.g. the sourcing of rare earth metals in
wind energy), though are becoming more visible elsewhere (e.g. the consequences of
globally sourcing biomass for energy generation). Finally, we should not make the mistake of
considering emergent publics to be solely oppositional – it is not difficult to find examples of
emergent publics being incorporated into mechanisms of sustainable energy governance, or
elsewhere, working with the pharmaceutical industry in the search for new treatments for
rare diseases. Whether such public/private partnerships deliver fairer outcomes or represent
a form of co-optation into elite agendas is a key question needing further research.

4. Elam, M. & Bertilsson, M. (2003) Consuming, Engaging and Confronting Science: The Emerging
Dimensions of Scientific Citizenship. European Journal of Social Theory 6(2):233-251
Hess, David (2010) To Tell The Truth: on scientific counterpublics. Public Understanding of
Science 20(5):627-641
Irwin, Alan (2001) Constructing the Scientific Citizen: science and democracy in the biosciences.
Public Understanding of Science 10(1):1-18
Irwin, Alan (2006) The Politics of Talk: coming to terms with the new scientific governance. Social
Studies of Science 36(2):288-320
Lezaun, J. & Soneryd, L. (2007) Consulting Citizens: technologies of elicitation and the mobility of
publics. Public Understanding of Science 16(3):279-297
Martin, Graham (2008) 'Ordinary people only': knowledge, representativeness, and the publics of
public participation in healthcare. Sociology of Health & Illness 30(1):35-54
Mohr A, Raman S, & Elliott R (2009) An independent evaluation of the BBSRC and the MRC Stem
Cell Dialogue Project 2008. Available: http://www.bbsrc.ac.uk/society/dialogue/activities/stem-cell-
dialogue.aspx. Accessed: 19 March 2012.
Michael, Mike (2009) Publics Performing Publics: of PiGs, PiPs and politics. Public Understanding
of Science 18(5):617-631
Mohr, Alison (2011) Publics in the Making: mediating different methods of engagement and the
publics these construct : commentary on: "Technologies of democracy: experiments and
demonstrations". Science and Engineering Ethics 17(4):667-672
Walker, G. and Cass, N. (2007) Carbon Reduction, ‘the public’ and Renewable Energy: engaging with
socio-technical configurations. Area 39(4):458-469
Wynne, B. (2007) “Public Participation in Science and Technology: Performing and Obscuring a
Political-Conceptual Category Mistake,” East Asian Science, Technology and Society: An
International Journal 1(1): 99–110