María José Martín-Sempere

Belén Garzón-García

Jesús Rey-Rocha

Scientists' motivation to communicate science and technology to the public: surveying participants at the Madrid Science Fair

Keywords: public communication of science and technology, role of scientists, motivation, science fairs

Introduction

Bringing science closer to society has been claimed at different times to be one of the responsibilities or "duties" of scientists, particularly of those who receive grants from public funds. Scientists, and in general the whole scientific community, should play an essential role in the process of Public Communication of Science and Technology (PCST) [START_REF] Bodmer | The Public Understanding of Science[END_REF]Royal Society, 1990;Wolfendale Committee, 1995;[START_REF] Gregory | Science in Public: Communication, Culture and Credibility[END_REF][START_REF] Miller | Public Understanding of Science at the Crossroads[END_REF]Pearson, 2001a;[START_REF] Burns | Science Communication: a Contemporary Definition[END_REF]. Scientists themselves also recognize a public duty, but to varying degrees [START_REF] Gascoigne | Incentives and Impediments to Scientists Communicating through the Media[END_REF][START_REF] Pearson | Scientists and the Public Understanding of Science[END_REF][START_REF] Corrado | The Role of Scientists in Public Debate, Research study[END_REF][START_REF] Oliveira | Una estrategia de guerrilla para la divulgación: difusión cultural de la ciencia[END_REF]. In this regard, scientific practice and the profession are evolving in a way that should make scientists respond more positively to the need to improve the general public's access to science and should encourage them to take part in activities to improve the public understanding of science (PUS), and even consider it their duty to do so [START_REF] Bodmer | The Public Understanding of Science[END_REF]Wolfendale Committee, 1995;[START_REF] Rutherford | Windows on the World of Science: Preparation and Opportunity[END_REF][START_REF] Burns | Science Communication: a Contemporary Definition[END_REF]. The understanding of science is, among other things, a task of social identification with scientific institutions and their actors, which is dependent upon reciprocal trust [START_REF] Blanco | Confianza social en la ciencia[END_REF] in the line of the so-called "contextual approach" to PUS (regarding the "deficit" and the "contextual" models of PUS, see for instance [START_REF] Gross | The Roles of Rhetoric in the Public Understanding of Science[END_REF][START_REF] Miller | Public Understanding of Science at the Crossroads[END_REF][START_REF] Michael | Comprehension, Apprehension, Prehension: Heterogeneity and the Public Understanding of Science[END_REF][START_REF] Burns | Science Communication: a Contemporary Definition[END_REF][START_REF] Sturgis | Science in Society: Re-evaluating the Deficit Model of Public Attitudes[END_REF].

Nevertheless, many scientists are still reluctant to become involved in PCST activities. 1 Little evidence exists to explain this reluctance, although this situation is most likely the result of a combination of reasons [START_REF] Bodmer | Research to Improve Public Understanding Programmes[END_REF][START_REF] Gascoigne | Incentives and Impediments to Scientists Communicating through the Media[END_REF][START_REF] Goodell | The Visible Scientists[END_REF][START_REF] Miller | The Measurement of Civic Scientific Literacy[END_REF][START_REF] Corrado | The Role of Scientists in Public Debate, Research study[END_REF]. Communication to the public is generally not seen by scientists as a basic part of their work, and is an activity regarded by scientists as neutral or even counter to their prospects for promotion. Other concerns include negative reaction by colleagues, lack of training in public communication, and the need to adapt their work habits and communication skills to a public about whom they don't know much [START_REF] Levy-Leblond | About Misunderstandings about Misunderstandings[END_REF][START_REF] Miller | The Measurement of Civic Scientific Literacy[END_REF]. These efforts are often not seen by scientists to be legitimized, recognized or rewarded.

Despite the importance of scientists in the chain of knowledge dissemination and science communication, few studies have dealt with the role of scientists in the process of PCST, their patterns of communication with the public, or their motivations for participating in PCST and PUS activities [START_REF] Corrado | The Role of Scientists in Public Debate, Research study[END_REF]. Since the early 1990s, when Bodmer and Wilkins (1992: 9) pointed out how limited existing knowledge was on scientists' attitudes and noted the need to improve our understanding of "how we can best help and encourage more members of the scientific community to become involved," few relevant studies have been undertaken. Among the most enlightening publications are the survey conducted by Market and Opinion Research International (MORI) [START_REF] Corrado | The Role of Scientists in Public Debate, Research study[END_REF] commissioned and funded by The Wellcome Trust, and articles by [START_REF] Gascoigne | Incentives and Impediments to Scientists Communicating through the Media[END_REF] and by Pearson [START_REF] Pearson | Scientists and the Public Understanding of Science[END_REF]Pearson, 2001b).

The MORI study [START_REF] Corrado | The Role of Scientists in Public Debate, Research study[END_REF] 3) interviewed a randomly selected sample of over 1600 scientists working in universities and research institutes in the UK. A notable finding of the study was that most scientists interviewed "feel that scientists themselves should have the main responsibility for communicating the social and ethical implications of scientific research to the nonspecialist public" (the vast majority of them believed it is their duty to do so), although "fewer feel that scientists are the people best equipped to do this." [START_REF] Gascoigne | Incentives and Impediments to Scientists Communicating through the Media[END_REF] examined the factors that encourage and discourage scientists to communicate their work through the media, surveying a selected sample of Australian scientists. They found that communication through the media was seen as an optional activity for scientists, not a basic part of their work, and that they regarded media activity as neutral or harmful to their promotion prospects.

The issue of motivations that prompt scientists to become involved in communicating their research to the public was addressed to some extent by Pearson et al. (1997: 279) who analyzed the attitudes and opinions of 168 scientists and engineers who took their research work into a shopping mall in Bristol for two days. They found that "most of the scientists took part because they were told by senior colleagues," and, after the event, 94 percent of them "wanted to take part again mainly because they had found the experience enjoyable." Public duty was found to be another important reason for taking part. In a later study Pearson (2001b) surveyed a selected group of 147 "PUS-active" scientists in the UK, and found that they were not motivated primarily by a sense of duty but by their enjoyment of PUS activities and their desire to increase the public's interest in, awareness of and excitement for science together with their understanding of basic science.

From this perspective, it is important to consider the human and social capital that the scientific community represents, not only as the main generator of scientific knowl-edge, but also as an important actor in the process of its dissemination. The "scientific community" is understood to be the whole population of "science practitioners," that is, people who are directly involved in some aspect of the practice of science [START_REF] Burns | Science Communication: a Contemporary Definition[END_REF], including not only researchers, but also technical and support personnel, pre-and postdoctoral scholars and contracted personnel. If scientists are to be encouraged to become involved in PCST activities, it is crucial to find out more about their role and how they view communication with the public, on "what inspires them, what encourages and motivates them to be involved, and what benefits they can expect" (Pearson et al., 1997: 280).

The research reported here aimed to investigate what motivates scientists to communicate their work to the general public through hands-on experiments in a PCST event involving a direct relationship and interaction with the public. We surveyed personnel of the Spanish Council for Scientific Research (CSIC) who have actively participated in the Madrid Science Fair in the years 2001 to 2004 to investigate their motivations for becoming involved in this event. Here, we try to answer some relevant questions about what motivates and encourages science practitioners to participate in this kind of science event. To what extent are they motivated by intrinsic or extrinsic factors? To what extent are they motivated by personal or professional factors? Do they feel communication of science to the public to be part of their job, i.e., do they feel motivated by a sense of duty to communicate science? To what extent do they participate as a result of their commitment to PCST and their concern for the public understanding of science and scientific culture? Do motivations differ depending on the individuals' professional category and age?

This study sheds light on the motivations that led practitioners to get involved in the Fair and the mechanisms that underlie these motivations. It is hoped that our findings will help foster these motivations in a way that increases participation in this event by CSIC scientists.

The Madrid Science Fair

Among the actions and initiatives aimed at raising the level of public understanding of science, "Science Weeks" and more specifically "Science Fairs," are perhaps the events that foment the closest interaction between scientists and the public. Science fairs in particular bring science to the citizens in an interactive way.

In Spain, the first science fair was held in A Coruña in 1996, and since 2000, annual fairs have been held in seven different locations: A Coruña, the Balearic Islands, Barcelona, Castilla-La Mancha, Madrid, Murcia and Seville. In Madrid, the Science Fair has been an annual four-day-long weekend event since 2000. It is organized by the regional government of the Community of Madrid within the framework of the Scientific Culture and Citizen Participation Program as a local initiative involving some 500 activities based on hands-on experiments and demonstrations. Overall, 200 organizations belonging to different institutional sectors are involved: universities, research centers, museums, educational centers, scientific societies, organizations from the local, regional and national governments, foundations, and private companies related to science. In 2004, 200 researchers and university lecturers participated, together with 200 teachers, 2000 primary and secondary school students and 100 professionals. Visitors numbered some 122,500 (25.2 percent of them children, 35.9 percent young people and 38.9 percent adults) (Comunidad de Madrid, 2004). The Madrid Science Fair makes special efforts to raise the public's interest in science and technology as well as to encourage scientists to be more sensitive to the needs of the public. Participation by CSIC personnel in the Fair tends to be organized on a top-down basis, with researchers invited to participate on the basis of their research areas' relevance to the Fair.

Methods

The population we studied consisted of CSIC personnel who actively participated in the Madrid Science Fair in the years 2001 to 2004. The first Fair in 2000 was not included in this analysis because of its experimental nature, and because the researchers' participation consisted mainly of poster presentations. In other words, there was little direct interaction with the public.

We did not include participants from two CSIC centers: the National Museum of Natural Sciences and the Royal Botanical Garden. Both centers, in addition to their research activity, have stable programs in scientific communication and specialized staff members whose institutional participation in the Fair is arranged through a very different process to that of the rest of the CSIC personnel. The present study did not take into account personnel who participated in purely organizational aspects of the Fair such as physical set-up of the stands or transport and installation of equipment.

The population thus consisted of 220 individuals belonging to 21 CSIC research centers and institutes. The CSIC is the largest public research organization in Spain. As a multidisciplinary body, it covers all fields of knowledge from basic research to advanced technological development. 2 All five professional groups of CSIC research practitioners are represented in the population we studied. These groups differ in academic level, professional category and contractual link with the CSIC. Senior researchers (23.6 percent of the population) are permanent staff members of the CSIC with a full-time research position. Technicians and support staff (20.5 percent) also belong to the permanent staff, and their main task is to provide support for the researchers at the center to which they belong. Postdoctoral fellows (8.2 percent) are personnel who hold a Ph.D. degree and work at the CSIC on contract or with a postdoctoral fellowship, and whose tasks are similar to those of senior researchers. Predoctoral fellows (29.1 percent) are personnel whose main duty is to carry out research oriented towards obtaining their doctoral degree. Technicians with a temporary position (18.6 percent) hold an undergraduate or graduate university degree and are temporarily linked to the CSIC through a contract or fellowship to support research. While CSIC personnel constitute a consistent, well-defined population which is representative of the different research practitioners doing full-time scientific research in Spain, nevertheless, this sample must not be considered representative of the whole Spanish scientific community, which includes scientists working in different institutional contexts (university, private companies, etc.).

The study was carried out as a detailed structured questionnaire survey. The questionnaire was administered to most of the participants through face-to-face interviews. One of the many advantages of this method [START_REF] Lahlou | A Guideline for Survey-Techniques in Evaluation of Research[END_REF] was that it allowed a complex questionnaire to be developed, a structured procedure for data processing, and control over timing of the fieldwork. Although this is a costly information-gathering procedure, in this case the size of the population, together with its geographical concentration, facilitated the use of this technique.

The structured questionnaire, tested on a selected group of scientists from the population, included questions requiring scaled responses and a number of free response questions. Respondents were offered the chance to express their opinions on any particularly sensitive aspect of the questions posed. Interviews were scheduled to last between 20 and 30 minutes.

Experimental studies have demonstrated that the interpersonal interaction between the interviewee and the interviewer can influence the results, thus different interviewers can obtain different (biased) results [START_REF] Lahlou | A Guideline for Survey-Techniques in Evaluation of Research[END_REF][START_REF] Kvale | Interviews: An Introduction to Qualitative Research Interviewing[END_REF]. To reduce interviewer bias due to interviewer variance, all interviews were performed by the same two researchers (authors of this paper).

Owing to the small size of the population studied, no sampling strategy was used. A letter was sent to all participants stating the reasons for the survey and the principle of the study. Shortly thereafter, they were contacted by telephone to make an appointment for the interview. A total of 167 individuals were surveyed, accounting for 75.9 percent of all participants in the Fair. The percentage response rates were the following: senior researchers 86.5 percent; technicians and support staff 75.6 percent; predoctoral fellows 77.8 percent; postdoctoral fellows 68.8 percent; and technicians with a temporary position 73.2 percent. The rest of the participants either could not be contacted (51 individuals) for different reasons (retired, moved to another institution, abroad, etc.) or refused to participate (2 individuals).

Information was gathered regarding (among other aspects) the motivations that encouraged research practitioners to take part in the Fair. Items in the survey required participants to respond to the question, "Please indicate to what extent the following motivations influenced your decision to take part in the Fair" on a five-point scale ranging from 1 (not important at all) to 5 (very important). These items reflect "values" or "self-attributed needs," in the sense that they are conscious states that the person recognizes and may describe (i.e., they are openly acknowledged by the actor), as opposed to the "motives" or "implicit needs" which affect behavior without conscious awareness on the actor's part [START_REF] Mcclelland | The Achievement Motive[END_REF][START_REF] Mcclelland | How do Self-attributed and Implicit Motives Differ?[END_REF]. In this sense, values are better predictors of conscious choices of conduct, such as decisions on how much effort to put into a task, and may predict specific answers concerning a particular situation.

Statistical analysis was performed with the SPSS (v. 12.0) for Windows. Categorical principal components analysis (CATPCA) was used to investigate the relationships between the variables. This analysis uses optimal scaling to generalize the principal components analysis procedure so that it can accommodate variables of mixed measurement levels (scale, ordinal and nominal). This makes it possible to find and summarize the relationships between variables (relationships that cannot be extracted directly from data tables), reducing the original set of variables to a smaller set of noncorrelated components that represent most of the information found in the original variables.

The outcome of CATPCA is interpreted by reading a plot in which component loadings are shown as the orientation of lines along the principal axes. The relationships between ordinal variables represented by their correlations with the principal components are displayed as vectors pointing towards the category with the highest score. The length of a vector reflects the importance of the variable: the longer the vector, the more variance is accounted for. The angle between two vectors reflects the correlations between the variables they represent: the more orthogonal the vector, the less correlated the variables are.

Two levels of CATPCA were used. First, the relationships between the values assigned to the different motivations were analyzed, as well as their correlations with professional category. Once the relationship between variables (motivations) was determined, a second analysis was performed using an index created from the original variables. A model was obtained to reduce the information to a smaller number of variables and to account for the largest possible percentage of the variance. This index was calculated by adding the values given to variables that were related, and dividing this sum by the number of variables, according to the formula:

Results

Figure 1 shows the component loadings plot obtained with CATPCA to summarize the relationships between the different motivations, as well as the relationships between motivations and professional category.

• • • • • • • • • • • • • •
Professional categories: SR: senior researchers; TSS: technicians and support staff; POS: postdoctoral fellows: PRE: predoctoral fellows; TEC: technicians with a temporary position. Motivations: PI: arousing or increasing the public's interest in and enthusiasm for science; SC: increasing the public's scientific culture; PA: increasing the public's appreciation of the scientist's work; VI: make my center better known or more visible; SD: sense of duty; TT: told to by somebody else; PC: Personal commitment; PS: personal satisfaction; EN: enjoyment; PR: professional relationships; PP: professional promotion; ER: economic reward; DO: days off reward. Appendix 1 shows the CATPCA model summary, the variance accounted for by each variable, and correlations among variables. where Y i is the value given to each variable (from 1 to 5), P i the weight assigned to the variable (in this case all were equally weighted, hence P = 1), and n the number of variables used to calculate the index.

I = n l=1 YiPi n
The first dimension of the CATPCA plot separates a first group of closely correlated motivations that formed a bundle with negative component loadings in this dimension. This group, called "personal commitment," comprises the motivations "personal commitment" and "told to by someone else." The remaining motivations formed three bundles that were separated mainly in the second dimension. The first bundle, called "personal and professional motivations," comprised motivations with a personal or personal-professional aspect ("enjoyment," "professional relationships," "professional promotion" and "personal satisfaction"), together with two motivations related to short-term personal rewards ("economic reward" and "days off reward"). The second bundle, called "scientific culture and communication of science," represents researchers' commitment to the communication of science and their concern for the public's scientific culture. This bundle comprised the motivations "desire to increase the public's scientific culture," "arouse or increase the public's interest in and enthusiasm for science," "increasing the public's appreciation of the scientist's work," and "make their center better known or more visible." The third bundle comprises only the "sense of duty" motivation and stands alone in the Figure .  All motivations within the same bundle are highly (positively) correlated. In other words, the higher the value given to one motivation, the higher the value likely to be given to the rest of the motivations within the same bundle. Below, we analyze these motivations in some detail, beginning with those scored highest by the surveyees. The response distribution to the questions asked in the survey is summarized in Table 1.

The responses reveal a high level of concern and commitment by CSIC personnel concerning Communication of Science, Public Understanding of Science, and the Public's Scientific Culture. The motivations that received the highest scores from the surveyees are directly linked to these aspects. Most surveyees stated that they were fairly or highly motivated by the desire to "arouse or increase the public's interest in and enthusiasm for science," and to "increase the public's scientific culture." This characteristic is common to all groups; however, it was scored highest by senior researchers, predoctoral fellows and postdoctoral fellows.

Two other important motivations related to the two leading motivations noted above were identified, both of which involved a personal aspect. First, the motivation for "increasing the public's appreciation of the scientist's work" was scored highly by all groups. This motivation reflects scientists' desire for their work to be not only well known, but also socially recognized. Second, participants expressed a strong desire to "make their center better known or more visible." This reflects their motivation to make science known to the public, not only through the dissemination of scientific knowledge, but also by introducing scientists and research centers to the public. Although it also received high scores, this motivation was less important than the ones noted above, and was associated fundamentally with permanent staff (senior researchers, and technicians and support staff), who seem to be more committed to gaining visibility for their centers.

"Sense of duty," in terms of considering scientific popularization and communication of science as part of a scientist's job or a duty, is a motivation that is closely related to awareness of the need to communicate science, as well as to the set of values represented by motivations in the "scientific culture and communication of science" group.

Senior researchers appeared to be highly motivated by a "sense of duty." This was also an important motivation for postdoctoral fellows and technicians and support staff, whereas the youngest individuals in the sample (predoctoral fellows and technicians with a temporary position) were not primarily motivated by a sense of duty. Most of the senior researchers surveyed were concerned with the importance of communicating science to the public as an activity that should be considered a scientist's duty. Some of them offered specific explanations:

Communicating science to the public is a duty [of scientists], but should be recognized by the institution [the CSIC].

We must show solidarity with society, since after all we work with public funds.

We should present our work to society, so that society demands greater support for science.

I think that popularization of science is more important than any research we set out to do. And communicating to the public well is more difficult than writing a scientific article.

Although other researchers participated in the Fair, they were of the opinion that PCST need not be one of the activities or tasks of the scientists, but that it should be left in the hands of other professionals: "There should be an intermediate echelon between the scientist and the public; a professional in science communication to the public."

On the other hand, some scientists expressed doubts regarding the use of science fairs and similar activities to bring science closer to the public: I believe that caution is needed in handling the image of the CSIC. A balance needs to be found between combining activities for children with other activities that highlight the high scientific and technological level of the CSIC. Some participants expressed clear reluctance, believing that these activities might "trivialize" science to some degree. Different opinions were offered by CSIC staff who participated in the Fair regarding the extent to which science should be displayed in an event involving a certain element of entertainment. Among these reluctant scientists, one surveyee noted with regard to the potential entertainment value of science: Science should not have to be displayed at leisure events. Places exist for science dissemination, such as museums, technical fairs, etc. Museums, science documentaries, and especially teachers play important roles in bringing science closer to children.

The "personal commitment" group of motivations represents the extent to which individuals feel motivated or committed to attend the Fair because of their professional relationship or sense of commitment to another person. This person might be their supervisor, a colleague, one of the coordinators of institutional participation by the CSIC in the Fair, or even a representative of the regional government of Madrid, the organizer of the event. Both variables in this bundle ("told to by somebody else" and "personal commitment") showed a weak, inverse correlation with professional category (-0.02 and -0.04, respectively).

The youngest members of the population (predoctoral fellows and technicians with a temporary position) are those for whom being told to participate by somebody else had the highest motivational value. For these individuals, participation in the Fair depended in most cases on the decision of their supervisor, i.e., the senior scientist and leader of the research team. In contrast, personal commitment seemed to affect the decision to participate mainly among senior researchers, on the one hand, and technicians with a temporary position on the other. For senior researchers, participation in the Fair was sometimes induced by a personal rather than professional commitment to the director of their research center or to the organizers of the event. In the same vein, some technicians with a temporary position felt a personal commitment to comply with their supervisor's instructions.

Finally, within the "personal and professional motivations" bundle are purely extrinsic motivations such as "economic reward" and compensation in the form of "days off" and "professional promotion," in addition to other fundamentally intrinsic motivations such as "personal satisfaction," "professional relationships" and "enjoyment."

This bundle includes two motivations of medium-scale importance in terms of how the surveyees scored them: "personal satisfaction" and "enjoyment." These motivations, which can be considered strictly personal in nature, were relatively important for the youngest members of the population (predoctoral fellows and technicians with a temporary position), and slightly less important for technicians and support staff, in comparison to the groups of senior researchers and postdoctoral fellows.

Personal motivations wane in importance when they overlap the professional sphere ("professional relationships" and "professional promotion"), and factors such as "economic reward" or rewards in the form of "days off" were considered motivations of little importance by most of the people we surveyed. In this regard, senior researchers indicated that they were not motivated to any degree by either reward. "Economic reward," the variable that showed the highest correlation (0.46) with professional category (i.e., the one that best discriminated among categories) was judged fairly or very important by a small percentage of technical and support staff, postdoctoral and predoctoral fellows and technicians with a temporary position, whereas "days off" was a motivation only for technical and support staff. However, the limited motivational capacity of these two rewards may be conditioned to a large degree by previous knowledge of institutional regulations with regard to days off, as well as the modest amounts involved in economic rewards.

In addition to the motivations included in the questionnaire, other motivations were indicated by some of the surveyees. Some individuals specifically mentioned the satisfaction of working with children and watching them enjoy science. A closely related factor was motivation by the opportunity to reach out to a young public-the pipeline of future scientistsand to stimulate interest in science as a vocation among young persons. Other aspects that were mentioned were helping to communicate the participation of women in science, getting away from the research routine, a change of scene and chance to meet other colleagues in another environment, and the decision to participate in place of other colleagues who showed no interest in taking part in the Fair, to ensure that a particular research center was represented at the event.

According to comments offered by the participants during the interview, two aspects of their own or their colleague's motivation for participating in the Fair stood out: "professional promotion" and "lack of turnover."

First, "professional promotion" was not a factor in general, and indeed, in many cases participation in events of this nature was considered to have negative repercussions on the participant's career. According to some respondents, certain colleagues consider that those who participated in this type of PCST event "have nothing better to do" or "aren't good enough for more important activities." This is an opinion that extends to any activity other than carrying out funded research and the subsequent publication of results in prestigious international journals. Some of the senior researchers surveyed made specific mention of this perception:

Participation in the Fair is unfavorable because there is an assumption that those colleagues who do take part have nothing better to do.

Scientists are conscious of the value of popularization of science, but they would rather let others do it, that is, others who they assume are less skilled [in scientific research] or "less clever" because they themselves have more important things to do. Nevertheless, it is true that prominent scientists are involved in popularizing science, because for them it is "the cherry on top" of their career.

Second, "lack of turnover" often acts as a negative motivator since some of the participants are unenthusiastic due to the lack of interest and collaboration from their colleagues. This means it is "always the same people" who participate.

Once we had identified the motivations characteristic of each professional category and the relationships between these motivations, an index was created to represent each group of motivations obtained with CATPCA. The four resulting indexes were called "personal commitment," "personal and professional motivations," "scientific culture and communication of science," and "sense of duty." This last index consisted solely of the variable of the same name.

A second CATPCA was then carried out to determine motivational behaviors of the sample according to individuals' professional status. The results of this analysis were consistent with the previous one, although the second CATPCA explained a significantly higher percentage of variance (89.6 percent). The model is summarized in the three-dimensional graph (Figure 2) that displays the relationships between the indexes and the different professional categories.

All indexes accounted for a similar amount of variance (eigenvalues ranging from 0.85 to 0.92). "Personal and professional motivations" together with "sense of duty" were the indexes that showed the highest correlations with professional category. The "personal and professional motivations" index, which included motivations with a highly personal or individual component, correlated well with professional category (0.46). These motivations were considered least important by senior researchers and most important to the technicians with a temporary position. The opposite was found for the "sense of duty" index (correlation -0.39), which was the most important motivation mainly for senior researchers whereas technicians with a temporary position and predoctoral fellows seemed to be less motivated by this factor. The vectors of the "personal commitment" and "scientific culture and communication of science" indexes were orthogonal to the professional category vector, reflecting a low correlation (0.1 and -0.15, respectively) and thus a limited ability to discriminate between professional categories.

As noted above, "sense of duty" showed a high correlation with professional category. Closely related to the individuals' sense of duty was the manner in which they got involved in the Fair, which also varied significantly depending on professional category. The greater degree of professional autonomy of senior researchers was reflected in the high percentage of individuals (more than 50 percent) who participated in the Fair of their own initiative, regardless of whether they considered participating in the Fair as a duty.

In all professional categories, most individuals took part in the Fair because they were told to by somebody else. The differences here were substantial not only quantitatively but also qualitatively. Among senior researchers, 60 percent of whom stated that they participated because they were told to, the initiative normally came from administrators or managers responsible for coordinating CSIC participation either personally or through the director of the center to which the researcher belonged. In the remaining categories, particularly in nonpermanent personnel (where the percentage of individuals who participated because they were told to was notably high), the initiative or request usually came from the research team leader. Several individuals noted that although they took part initially at the behest of somebody else, they ultimately considered that they participated on their own initiative, accepting in some cases that the task was part of their job. Senior researchers, who gave the highest scores to "sense of duty" as a motivation for participating in the Fair, were the only group in which a number of individuals (11 percent) for whom communication of science to the public is not among their "official" duties nonetheless claimed to consider this part of their job.

The "sense of duty" correlated highly with the "scientific culture and communication of science" index (0.38), and particularly with the variable "make my center better known or more visible" (Figure 1). This latter is the motivation that showed the highest direct correlation (0.3) with sense of duty, indicating that individuals' sense of duty was largely associated with their commitment to making their research units or centers more visible.

The motivations within the "scientific culture and communication of science" index reveal a high level of concern and commitment on the part of CSIC personnel to the communication of science, the public understanding of science, and the public's scientific culture. This concern and commitment are also reflected by the number of individuals who participated repeatedly in two or more annual fairs. Among permanent staff members (whose participation in successive annual fairs can be traced), the percentage of individuals who participated in more than one annual fair was noticeably higher among senior researchers (51.2 percent) than among technicians and support staff (41.2 percent). These figures do not include persons who participated for the first time in the 2004 Fair. The decreases in the percentages of postdoctoral fellows (35.7 percent) and especially predoctoral fellows and technicians with a temporary position (13.6 percent and 13.3 percent, respectively) were most likely due to the temporary nature of their positions at the CSIC.

Nevertheless, repeated participation in PCST activities does not always depend solely upon one's own motivation, but may also depend upon external factors such as the willingness of one's superiors to authorize such activities. Thus, the interest in PCST and particularly the communication of science to the young public is also reflected by individuals' willingness to take part in outreach programs aimed at schoolchildren. Participants were asked specifically about their willingness to make school presentations of the same or a similar activity as at the Fair. The percentage of individuals willing to make school presentations ranged from 76.5 percent of technicians and support staff to 93.2 percent of predoctoral fellows.

Discussion and conclusions

The results presented here reveal how the engagement of CSIC research practitioners in the Madrid Science Fair is influenced, to different extents, by an ensemble of extrinsic and intrinsic motivations which involve aspects related to personal or professional benefit along with other, more altruistic considerations. The latter center on the desire to communicate science to the public and increase scientific culture, either by transmitting scientific knowledge, or by providing a better knowledge of research centers and the work carried out by scientists.

The motivations of the participants seem to reflect something more than the simple desire to communicate scientific knowledge. Their motives go beyond public communication of science and technology, which implies a one-way, top-down communication flow from scientists to the general public, where the public is often seen as a passive and sometimes poorly qualified receiver, in accordance with the so-called "deficit model" of public understanding of science. The researchers we surveyed seemed to be concerned with "scientific culture," in line with the "contextual approach" or "contextual model" of public understanding of science which depicts communication as a two-way interaction and dialogue between science and its public. Thus, the most important motivations were related to the desire to stimulate the public's interest in and enthusiasm for science, to increase the public's scientific culture, and to enhance public awareness and appreciation of science and scientists. Our results are consistent with those of Pearson (2001b), who surveyed a selected group of 147 "PUSactive" scientists in the UK. These scientists were found to be motivated mainly by the desire to stimulate the public's interest in, awareness of and excitement for science, together with their understanding of basic science.

In this regard, the vision of science communication held by CSIC research practitioners seems to be in line with the "vowel analogy" proposed by Burns et al. (2003: 190), according to which science communication aims to produce one or more of the following personal responses to science: "Awareness of science; Enjoyment or other affective responses to science; Interest in science; the forming, reforming or confirming of science-related Opinions (or attitudes); and Understanding of science."

In addition, senior researchers were highly motivated by a sense of duty, and noted the scientist's commitment to communicate science to the public. The extent to which scientists should consider it their duty to communicate with the public has been a central point in recent discussions of the role of the scientific community in the cause of greater public understanding and awareness of science [START_REF] Bodmer | The Public Understanding of Science[END_REF]Royal Society, 1990;Wolfendale Committee, 1995;[START_REF] Pearson | Scientists and the Public Understanding of Science[END_REF][START_REF] Gregory | Science in Public: Communication, Culture and Credibility[END_REF][START_REF] Miller | Public Understanding of Science at the Crossroads[END_REF]Pearson, 2001a;[START_REF] Burns | Science Communication: a Contemporary Definition[END_REF]. The few published studies that have investigated this issue reported different results. On the one hand, the vast majority of staff research scientists interviewed by MORI [START_REF] Corrado | The Role of Scientists in Public Debate, Research study[END_REF] believed it was their duty to communicate their research and its social and ethical implications to policy makers (91 percent agreed) and to the nonspecialist public (84 percent agreed). Different results were found by [START_REF] Pearson | Scientists and the Public Understanding of Science[END_REF], who reported a low percentage (15 percent) of scientists participating in the UK's 1995 National Week of Science, Engineering and Technology as a result of their sense of public duty to communicate science, and 28 percent of them citing public duty as the reason they would take part again. On the other hand, they found that the only significant difference between participants was that "staff had the highest sense of public duty to communicate science" (Pearson et al., 1997: 282). Similarly, in the survey of "PUS-active" UK scientists conducted by Pearson (2001b), only 10 percent of surveyees got involved in PUS activities because of a sense of duty, and only 5 percent considered these activities as part of their job. There are interesting parallels between these results and the CSIC sample with respect to both the sense of duty reported by staff research scientists and the different perceptions of this duty between staff and nonstaff individuals.

In any case, participation rarely results solely from personal initiative, which once again reflects the reduced awareness of the importance of this activity. Our results are again consistent with the findings of Pearson et al. (1997: 282), who reported that most of the scientists who took part in the UK's 1995 National Week of Science, Engineering and Technology did so because "they were told to: the edict had come from on high."

Therefore, the motivations of the group we analyzed involve both a cultural and an aesthetic dimension. In the former, science popularization is seen as an activity important not only to society, but also to the scientist him or herself, as one of the activities that should distinguish an "integral scientist." This conception of PCST considers such activities in their social, informative, educational and useful aspects not only for the public, but also for science and scientists (e.g., PCST as a call that awakens a new vocation, as a booster of public interest in scientific topics, and as a factor that might increase the public's demand for science programs from politicians). The aesthetic dimension involves the notion that science communication to the public may not be seen by the scientist as something "compulsory, necessary or even useful," but simply as something "interesting, beautiful and enriching" (Bonfil Oliveira, 2003: 5). This notion of science communication to the public can open doors and, given the right circumstances, favor the intrinsic motivations of scientists.

Although it is true that this type of intrinsic motivation was strongly held among all the professional groups we studied, the importance of extrinsic motivations cannot be neglected. Unfortunately, the effect of these rewards on the willingness of CSIC personnel to take part in the Fair cannot be inferred from the results of our study, as personnel made the decision to participate even though they knew that the recognition or external rewards that would accrue from their work at the Fair would be limited, and consequently these extrinsic motivations were given low scores by respondents. Further research to elucidate their likely influence should take into account that an appropriate balance between extrinsic and intrinsic motivations can acquire considerable importance for managers. It is not so much the strength of extrinsic motivations but rather their influence over intrinsic motivations which may actually determine how important the former are. It should be mentioned here that, as reported in numerous experiments [START_REF] Kruglanski | The Effects of Extrinsic Incentive on Some Qualitative Aspects of Task Performance[END_REF][START_REF] Deci | Intrinsic Motivation, Extrinsic Reinforcement and Inequity[END_REF][START_REF] Ross | Salience of Reward and Intrinsic Motivation[END_REF], the intrinsic motivation to perform a task purely for personal satisfaction can decrease under certain circumstances when external rewards are offered. This raises the issue of whether, and to what extent, internal causality (intrinsically motivated conduct aimed at PCST-related activities) is modified towards some degree of external causality.

The collective of young scientists, particularly predoctoral fellows working toward their doctoral degree (tomorrow's scientists), is of particular importance (see for instance Pearson, 2001a). The extent to which this collective is motivated to undertake PUS activities may be the result of the socialization process to which they are subjected during work on their advanced degrees. In contrast to staff researchers, they seemed to be more motivated by enjoyment and personal satisfaction than by a sense of duty. Their motivations seemed to lie in both the cultural and aesthetic dimensions of PCST. It seems that these young scientists are a new generation who do not view popularization as a tedious activity one engages in only out of a sense of duty, or in exchange for recognition or money. Positive experiences in PUS for researchers in the early stages of their scientific training "may encourage them to do more as they continue their scientific career" (Pearson, 2001a: 129).

Our results and the conclusions we have drawn concern the particular sample we studied, and should not be considered to be predictive. It is thus important to avoid drawing inferences that might not hold if applied to other researchers and other research and development frameworks.

The present study has tried to identify the motivations that led this sample of research practitioners to participate in a science fair, a type of PCST event characterized by its particular dynamics and structure, and-more importantly-by the close, direct relationship it obliges scientists to engage in with a public consisting to a large degree of young people. However, identifying the motivations is only the first step toward understanding why scientists whose main task is to carry out research are willing to take part in PCST activities. An additional series of factors that could influence this decision are fundamental to our understanding of the motivational process, and await analysis. Some of these factors are the possible problems and limitations scientists face in participating in PCST activities; their perception of how interested the public is in their participation, and its usefulness; and the benefits to be obtained from participation. In addition, we set out to determine the possible motives that underlie some scientists' negative reactions to participating in this type of PCST event, and to discover the conditions that determine their nonparticipation. valuable statistical advice. We also thank the three anonymous reviewers for thoughtful revision suggestions and useful comments, and K. Shashok for improving the use of English in the manuscript.

Figure 1 .

 1 Figure 1. Relationships between "motivations" and "professional category."

  Professional categories: SR: senior researchers; TSS: technicians and support staff; POS: postdoctoral fellows: PRE: predoctoral fellows; TEC: technicians with a temporary position. Indexes: PCI: personal commitment index; SDI: sense of duty index; SCI: scientific culture and communication of science index; PPMI: personal and professional motivation index. Appendix 2 shows the CATPCA model summary, the variance accounted for by each variable, and correlations among variables.

Figure 2 .

 2 Figure 2. Relationships between motivation indexes and professional category.

Table 1 .

 1 Distribution of responses (expressed as percentage of respondents) to the question "Please indicate to what extent the following motivations influenced your decision to take part in the Fair"

								Motivations
		PI	SC	PA	VI	SD	TT	PC	PS	EN	PR	PP	ER	DO
	Senior researchers (n = 45)
	1+2	4.4	6.7	8.9 17.7	4.4 60.0 55.5 28.9 60.0 66.7 88.9 100	100
	4+5	88.9 82.2 77.8 68.9 82.2 28.9 26.6 48.9 20.0 11.1	4.4	0.0	0.0
	Average	4.4	4.3	4.0	3.8	4.2	2.3	2.3	3.2	2.2	2.0	1.4	1.0	1.0
	Technicians and support staff (n = 34)
	1+2	8.8 11.7	5.8 17.6 32.3 52.9 73.5 20.6 55.9 47.1 88.3	82.4	88.3
	4+5	70.6 73.5 76.4 70.6 55.9 29.4 20.6 58.8 32.3 29.4	2.9	11.8	8.8
	Average	3.8	3.9	4.1	3.8	3.3	2.4	1.9	3.6	2.4	2.7	1.4	1.6	1.5
	Postdoctoral fellows (n = 14)
	1+2	7.1	7.1 14.2 21.4 14.2 42.9 85.7 21.4 71.4 57.2 85.7	78.6 100
	4+5	92.8 92.9 78.6 57.1 64.3 21.4	7.1 42.8 21.4 14.2	7.1	14.2	0.0
	Average	4.5	4.3	4.0	3.5	3.7	2.4	1.6	3.3	2.2	2.5	1.7	1.8	1.1
	Predoctoral fellows (n = 44)
	1+2	6.8	6.8	9.0 20.4 36.4 38.6 70.5 11.3 31.9 31.8 70.5	56.9	97.7
	4+5	84.1 75.0 70.5 54.5 36.4 25.0 15.9 63.6 40.9 29.6 15.9	18.2	0.0
	Average	4.2	4.0	3.9	3.5	2.9	2.7	1.9	3.7	3.0	2.9	2.0	2.2	1.1
	Technicians with a temporary position (n = 30)
	1+2	10.0 10.0 13.4 26.7 30.0 36.7 60.0 13.4 20.0 36.7 83.3	63.3	96.7
	4+5	73.3 73.3 56.7 50.0 36.7 40.0 23.3 73.3 43.3 23.4 10.0	13.3	0.0
	Average	4.0	4.0	3.7	3.4	3.0	3.1	2.2	3.9	3.2	2.7	1.8	2.1	1.1

Scale: 1 = not important at all; 2 = slightly important; 3 = moderately important (not shown); 4 = fairly important; 5 = very important. Motivations: PI: arousing or increasing the public's interest in and enthusiasm for science; SC: increasing the public's scientific culture; PA: increasing the public's appreciation for the scientist's work; VI: make my center better known or more visible; SD: sense of duty; TT: told to by somebody else; PC: personal commitment; PS: personal satisfaction; EN: enjoyment; PR: professional relationships; PP: professional promotion; ER: economic reward; DO: days off reward.

Table A1 .

 A1 Model summary

			Variance accounted for
	Dimension	Cronbach's alpha	Total (eigenvalue)	% of variance
	1	.79	3.65	28.11
	2	.61	2.30	17.72
	Total	.90 a	5.96	45.83

a Total Cronbach's alpha is based on the total eigenvalue.

Table A2 .

 A2 Variance accounted for

		Total (vector coordinates)
		Dimension
	Variables	1	2	Total
	PI	0.78	0.07	0.85
	SC	0.71	0.06	0.77
	PA	0.71	0.06	0.77
	VI	0.48	0.09	0.57
	SD	0.05	0.42	0.47
	PS	0.27	0.12	0.39
	EN	0.10	0.28	0.38
	TT	0.04	0.06	0.10
	PC	0.14	0.07	0.20
	PR	0.20	0.28	0.47
	PP	0.16	0.19	0.35
	ER	0.00	0.45	0.46
	DO	0.02	0.17	0.18
	PCAT a	0.00	0.26	0.26
	Active total	3.65	2.30	5.96
	% of variance	28.11	17.72	45.83

a Supplementary variable.

Table A3 .

 A3 Transformed variable correlations .88 0.80 0.59 0.26 0.32 0.11 -0.07 -0.22 0.22 0.20 -0.05 0.01 -0.08 SC 0.88 1.00 0.70 0.53 0.25 0.28 0.11 -0.15 -0.22 0.17 0.15 -0.04 0.02 -0.02 PA 0.80 0.70 1.00 0.62 0.22 0.25 0.15 -0.06 -0.25 0.21 0.20 -0.09 0.04 -0.13 VI 0.59 0.53 0.62 1.00 0.30 0.15 -0.06 -0.02 -0.09 0.23 0.19 -0.07 0.07 -0.15 SD 0.26 0.25 0.22 0.30 1.00 0.03 -0.14 0.11 0.13 -0.16 -0.04 -0.40 -0.20 -0.37 PS 0.32 0.28 0.25 0.15 0.03 1.00 0.55 -0.12 -0.21 0.30 0.28 0.07 0.07 0.17 EN 0.11 0.11 0.15 -0.06 -0.14 0.55 1.00 -0.11 -0.15 0.23 0.24 0.20 0.13 0.27 TT -0.07 -0.15 -0.06 -0.02 0.11 -0.12 -0.11 1.00 0.36 -0.11 -0.05 -0.08 -0.01 -0.02 PC -0.22 -0.22 -0.25 -0.09 0.13 -0.21 -0.15 0.36 1.00 -0.22 -0.05 -0.05 -0.08 -0.04 PR 0.22 0.17 0.21 0.23 -0.16 0.30 0.23 -0.11 -0.22 1.00 0.42 0.32 0.24 0.30 PP 0.20 0.15 0.20 0.19 -0.04 0.28 0.24 -0.05 -0.05 0.42 1.00 0.32 0.12 0.23 ER -0.05 -0.04 -0.09 -0.07 -0.40 0.07 0.20 -0.08 -0.05 0.32 0.32 1.00 0.22 0.46 DO 0.01 0.02 0.04 0.07 -0.20 0.07 0.13 -0.01 -0.08 0.24 0.12 0.22 1.00 0.11 PCAT a -0.08 -0.02 -0.13 -0.15 -0.37 0.17 0.27 -0.02 -0.04 0.30 0.23 0.46 0.11 1.00 Eigenvalue b 0.45 0.50 0.42 0.24 0.54 2.30 3.65 0.09 0.68 1.18 1.29 0.90 0.77

		PI	SC	PA	VI	SD	PS	EN	TT	PC	PR	PP	ER	DO PCAT
	PI	1.00 0

a Supplementary variable. b Eigenvalues of correlation matrix excluding supplementary variable.

Table A4 .

 A4 Chi-squared values

				p value exact
	Motivation × PCAT	χ 2	(Monte Carlo) a
	PI × PCAT SC × PCAT PA × PCAT VI × PCAT SD × PCAT PS × PCAT EN × PCAT TT × PCAT PC × PCAT PR × PCAT PP × PCAT ER × PCAT DO × PCAT	16.88 18.50 11.18 14.49 35.58 11.93 31.22 29.15 15.12 29.17 17.85 45.55 19.93	0.394 0.295 0.812 0.575 0.002 0.762 0.012 0.020 0.515 0.019 0.330 0.000 0.196
	Table A5. Model summary
				Variance accounted for
	Dimension	Cronbach's alpha	Total (eigenvalue)	% of variance
	1	0.44		1.50	37.39
	2	0.26		1.25	31.15
	3	-0.25		0.84	21.09
	Total	.96 a		3.58	89.63

a Significant differences when p value < 0.05.

a Total Cronbach's alpha is based on the total eigenvalue.

Table A6 .

 A6 Variance accounted for

			Total (vector coordinates)
			Dimension
		1	2		3	Total
	PPMI	0.40	0.29	0.21	0.89
	SCI	0.41	0.20	0.31	0.92
	SDI	0.56	0.19	0.10	0.85
	PCI	0.13	0.57	0.22	0.92
	PCAT a	0.23	0.00	0.06	0.30
	Active total	1.50	1.25	.84	3.58
	% of variance	37.39	31.15	21.09	89.63
	Table A7. Transformed variable correlations
		PPMI	SCI	SDI	PCI PCAT
	PPMI SCI SDI PCI PCAT a	1.00 -0.00 -0.26 0.33 0.46	-0.00 1.00 0.38 -0.08 -0.15	-0.26 0.38 1.00 0.10 -0.39	0.33 -0.08 0.10 1.00 0.10	0.46 -0.15 -0.39 0.10 1.00
	Eigenvalue b	1.50	1.25	0.84	0.41

a Supplementary variable.

a Supplementary variable. b Eigenvalues of correlation matrix excluding supplementary variable.

Public Understanding of Science 17 (3)

Public Understanding of Science 17 (3)

Acknowledgements

The project "Scientific Culture and Communication of Science in the Community of Madrid: A Study to Encourage Participation of Scientists in PCST Activities" was funded by the General Directorate for Universities and Research of the Regional Government of Madrid. The authors express their thanks to all the scientists participating in the Madrid Science Fair who took part in this study through personal interviews. Thanks are also expressed to Laura Barrios, head of the CSIC Department of Operational Research and Applied Statistics, for her

Appendix 1

CATPCA showing relationships between "motivations" and "professional category" (PCAT).

Appendix 2

CATPCA showing relationships between groups of motivations and professional category (PCAT). where the national headquarters are also situated. More than 12,000 people work at the CSIC, including tenured scientists, technicians, administrative staff and research fellows. About 2000 doctoral students are currently carrying out research for their theses at CSIC institutes. CSIC researchers are responsible for 20% of the scientific output of Spain, and for 0.55% of the world's scientific publications. CSIC is also the leading applicant from Spain to the Patent Cooperation Treaty.

Authors

The authors are all at the Group for Scientific Activity Studies, Spanish Council for Scientific Research (CSIC). Their current research lines are in the "evaluation of the participation of scientists in Public Communication of Science and Technology," and the study of "dynamics of research teamwork and its influence on research activity and performance of scientists." Correspondence: M.J. Martín-Sempere, Spanish Council for Scientific Research (CSIC), Joaquín Costa 22, 28002 Madrid, Spain; e-mail: sempere@cindoc.csic.es


Renato Schibeci

Jeffrey Harwood

Stimulating authentic community involvement in biotechnology policy in Australia

This paper analyzes community involvement in biotechnology policy in Australia. Specifically, we examine the Gene Technology Act 2000 that governs gene technology in Australia and the roles of the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator and the Gene Technology Community Consultative Committee. We contend that the institutions that underpin biotechnology policy serve to hamper community involvement and reinforce a cognitive deficit model of community involvement. Finally, we propose how the situation could be turned around so that interested citizens can participate in authentic community involvement in biotechnology policy in Australia.

Introduction

The idea that community involvement can stimulate trust in government and contribute to more effective public policy has been a cornerstone of studies of the public understanding of science over the past decade. Traditionally, policymakers have held that ordinary members of the community need more information to remedy their lack of understanding, that is, their "deficit" [START_REF] Wynne | Knowledges in Context[END_REF], and that it is the responsibility of scientists and policymakers to rectify this "ignorance." Recent studies have shown, however, that many people now realize that scientific issues are often clouded in uncertainty and value judgments; hence, they distrust policy research that privileges scientific knowledge at the expense of their local knowledge and values [START_REF] Bush | Keeping the Public Informed? Public Negotiation of Air Quality Information[END_REF][START_REF] Fischer | Citizens, Experts and the Environment: The Politics of Local Knowledge[END_REF][START_REF] Gutteling | Trust in Governance and the Acceptance of GM Food in the Netherlands[END_REF][START_REF] Jasanoff | Civilization and Madness: The Great BSE Scare of 1996[END_REF][START_REF] Macoubrie | Nanotechnology: Public Concerns, Reasoning and Trust in Government[END_REF][START_REF] Poortinga | The British 2001 Foot and Mouth Crisis: A Comparative Study of Public Risk Perception, Trust and Beliefs about Government Policy in Two Communities[END_REF][START_REF] Rowe | A Comparison of Responses to Internet and Postal Surveys in a Public Engagement Context[END_REF][START_REF] Shaw | It Just Goes Against the Grain': Public Understandings of Genetically Modified (GM) Food in the UK[END_REF][START_REF] Taylor-Gooby | Social Divisions of Trust: Scepticism and Democracy in the GM Nation? Debate[END_REF].

This has stimulated the use of focus groups, citizens' juries, consensus conferences and the like-what are broadly termed deliberative inclusionary processes (DIPs)-in a variety of contexts. In their study of the UK National Consensus Conference on Plant Technology, Joss and Durant (1995: 202) found that it succeeded in stimulating "dialogue between laypeople and experts." Moreover, Einsiedel et al. (2001: 94) concluded that the consensus model that originated in the United States and was adapted by the Danish Board of Technology is transferable to other political environments-in this case, to Canada and Australia. However, [START_REF] Irwin | Constructing the Scientific Citizen: Science and Democracy in the Biosciences[END_REF] repeatedly observed in the case of the Public Consultation on Developments in the Biosciences that the deficit model could prevail in cases where the organizers seek to impart knowledge, rather than create a mutual understanding between the participants. In her analysis of the New Zealand consensus conference on plant biotechnology, Govern (2003: 436-7) noted that if consensus conferences are not properly organized, they can effectively exclude views contrary to the prevailing paradigm. Despite these mixed findings and difficulties in establishing an agreed basis for the evaluation of DIPs (Rowe et al., 2005), DIPs continue to be applied to tackle issues in science and technology throughout the world because of their potential to stimulate mutual understanding between "experts" and "lay publics" and legitimize public policy.

The culture of Australian science and technology policy appears to be underpinned by a cognitive deficit model. This is evident in [START_REF] Parsons | Scientists and Politicians: The Need to Communicate[END_REF] discussion of the Parliamentary Information Program initiated by the Australian government funded Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO). As the program was intended to generate a continuing mutual dialogue between scientists and politicians, it was not entirely congruent with the cognitive deficit model. Nevertheless, there is little indication that the community has a serious role to play in addressing policy problems. Instead, the CSIRO is presented as an agency concerned more with transferring knowledge to politicians than engaging in a two-way dialogue with the community. Parsons (2001: 306-7) explained that the CSIRO provided "a multifaceted program of information delivery to politicians," which includes customized packages e-mailed to all politicians that can be used for policy formulation, speeches, press releases and to help deal with queries from the public. At Parliament House, "national science briefings" are held that show "how science can provide solutions to many problems facing Australians and Australian industry" (Parsons, 2001: 307).

In their study of Australian biotechnology policy, Dietrich and Schibeci (2003: 386-7) found that the cognitive deficit model prevailed amongst biotechnology policymakers in particular. Indeed, the lead agency, Biotechnology Australia (1999Australia ( , 2001)), used public opinion surveys to legitimate government policy and reinforce the construction of "the public" as consumers with a "cognitive deficit." Furthermore, Dietrich and Schibeci argued that the authors and proponents of these surveys mistakenly assume a unified public and ignore the local knowledge possessed by "the public." To stimulate community involvement in biotechnology policy, they suggested activities for the Australian government regulatory agency, the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator (OGTR) and its subcommittee, the Gene Technology Community Consultative Committee (GTCCC), which they assumed would become a "conduit of public opinion and participation" (Dietrich and Schibeci, 2003: 397).

In this paper, we continue Dietrich and Schibeci's work by analyzing the structural factors that might help or hinder community involvement in Australian biotechnology policy. First, we examined the work of the OGTR and its supporting committees-the Gene Technology Technical Advisory Committee, the Gene Technology Ethics Committee and the Gene Technology Community Consultative Committee-to determine whether there were any legislative requirements to involve the community. Second, we tracked the work of the committee given the task of reviewing the Gene Technology Act 2000. Third, we examined the review of the operations of the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator by the Australian National Audit Office.

We contend that the failure (or inability) of government agencies to stimulate authentic community involvement in gene technology is due, at least in some part, to institutional design. In the words of Goodin (1996: 13), "What people want to do, and what they can do, depends importantly on what organizational technology is available or can be made readily available to them for giving effect to the individual and collective volitions." That is, institutions, such as Parliament, committees, public hearings, citizen juries, and the formal and informal rules that govern participation in these institutions, matter because they affect the way that people perceive themselves, their relative position in the political arena and their opportunities to affect political and policy outputs. This is not to deny the possibility of individual free will to act politically; rather, institutions and their associated "rules of the game" can reinforce predispositions and self-images of people as consumers of information, rather than as active citizens.

Hence, we begin this article by setting out the institutional framework for gene technology policy in Australia. The Gene Technology Act 2000 established the OGTR as the agency primarily responsible for regulating gene technology and the GTCCC as the committee responsible for community involvement. In the third part, we explain how the Act consigns the GTCCC to a minor role compared with the Gene Technology Technical Advisory Committee, contend that the OGTR has shown little interest in community involvement and argue that the GTCCC has been constrained by operating procedures that prevent it from acting to further community involvement. In the fourth part of the article, we highlight this disinterest in community involvement by critically reviewing a public hearing that was held in Perth, in October 2005, as part of the review of the Gene Technology Act 2000. In the fifth part, we summarize the findings of the audit conducted by the Australian National Audit Office in 2004-5 to show how institutional design, notably the Gene Technology Act 2000, not only affects how the management of the OGTR is audited, but also limits the attention paid to community involvement in biotechnology. Finally, we present a series of amendments to the institutional framework that, if adopted, would likely stimulate community involvement in Australian biotechnology policy and legitimize the government's policies.

The institutional framework of Australian gene technology policy

With regard to providing the requisite "organizational technology" for authentic community involvement, the institutional framework of Australian gene technology policy is generally ambiguous and open to interpretation. As explained below, the Gene Technology Act 2000 established the OGTR and three advisory committees, and detailed their respective functions. The Act does not explicitly limit or prohibit community involvement; however, it can be interpreted such that the Gene Technology Regulator does not have to seriously encourage or consider inputs from the community.

In Australia, the Gene Technology Act 2000 (Commonwealth of Australia, 2000) and its supporting document, the Gene Technology Regulations 2001 (Commonwealth of Australia, 2001), provide the institutional basis for gene technology policy. It established the Gene Technology Ministerial Council to "issue policy principles, policy guidelines and codes of practice" (Commonwealth of Australia, 2001: 3). The Act also established the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator (OGTR) to regulate gene technology in Australia, the Gene Technology Technical Advisory Committee to provide scientific and technical advice to the Ministerial Council and the Regulator, the Gene Technology Ethics Committee to provide advice on ethical issues concerned with gene technology, policy principles and codes of conduct, and the Gene Technology Community Consultative Committee (GTCCC) to provide advice to the Regulator and Ministerial Council on "matters of general concern," policy principles and codes of conduct.

In keeping with the requirements of Section 27 of the Act, the OGTR has established means with which to keep the community informed about its activities and invite comments from the community. These means include establishing the OGTR website (http:// www.ogtr.gov.au), where visitors can obtain information about the institutional framework, the OGTR, the Gene Technology Ministerial Council and the gene technology advisory committees, monitoring and compliance, and applications for release of genetically modified (GM) organisms. From this website, visitors can also download organizational policies, legislation, fact sheets, media releases and forms for making applications under the Act. Interested parties can access a list of all GM organisms and products that have been cleared for use, obtain communiqués of committee meetings and subscribe to a client register to receive e-mailed updates of OGTR activities. There is also provision for the community to make submissions regarding the formulation of risk assessment and risk management plans for the release of GM organisms and products. The OGTR also invites comments in advertisements placed in the national newspaper, The Australian, regional newspapers and the Commonwealth Government Notices Gazette. A minimum of 30 days is allowed for feedback.

Formally, the institutional framework of Australian gene technology policy permits the community to participate in policy formulation by requiring the OGTR to provide information to the community and enabling the community to make submissions on applications for the release of GM organisms and products. Furthermore, the GTCCC has been established to give voice to the respective "interested publics." Ostensibly, at least, the institutional framework provides some scope for community involvement in biotechnology policy.

The Australian government Regulator and community involvement

While the formal institutional framework provides scope for community involvement, the extent of involvement has been limited by the interpretation of the Gene Technology Act 2000. The implications of the institutional framework for community involvement have gradually become clearer: interested Australian citizens are effectively excluded from participating in gene technology policy and treated as consumers of information, rather than as active citizens capable of deliberating and contributing to public policy. In this third part of the article, we present four institutional factors that undermine community involvement.

First, [START_REF] Schibeci | Community Involvement in Biotechnology Policy? The Australian Experience[END_REF] found that the influence of the GTCCC and the Gene Technology Ethics Committee over biotechnology policy appears to be minimal compared with that exerted by the Gene Technology Technical Advisory Committee. The Regulator explicitly stated that advice would be or was sought from the Gene Technology Technical Advisory Committee, but did not say whether the GTCCC and Gene Technology Ethics Committee would be asked to contribute (OGTR, 2001(OGTR, , 2002a)). While the Act states that the Regulator must consult with the Gene Technology Technical Advisory Committee on all matters pertaining to the risk assessment and risk management, it does not forbid the Regulator from consulting with the GTCCC and the Gene Technology Ethics Committee on these matters.

Second, further evidence of the low priority accorded the GTCCC is the length of time it has taken to renew the membership of the Committee. In accordance with the GTCCC Operating Procedures (OGTR, 2002b: 19), the appointments of the Committee members expired after three years in October 2004. At the time of writing this article in March 2006, however, no appointments to the GTCCC had been announced.

Third, the OGTR has continued to engage the community in a top-down manner that is consistent with the "cognitive deficit" model. This has seen the Regulator (OGTR, 2003) dismiss opposition to GM products as being based on ignorance. In fact, little evidence can be found that the OGTR is particularly interested in promoting community involvement or that interested members of the community can actually influence policy outputs.

Fourth, the GTCCC website also does little to stimulate dialogue between the community, the Committee and its secretariat (http://www.ogtr.gov.au/committee/gtccc.htm). As the primary interface between the GTCCC and the community, it is reasonable to expect its website to be inviting and informative. Instead, the website originally described the role of the Committee, identified and provided details about the Chair of the Committee and the other members, and provided links to the Committee's communiqués. There was no substantive material published on the site about how the community may become involved in biotechnology policy. Specifically, there was no online discussion forum to which people could post queries or discuss issues with Committee members, no list of forthcoming public meetings that people could attend nor work produced by the GTCCC (other than the communiqués). For example, it could have published the draft of its public consultation framework and elicited feedback.

Review of the Gene Technology Act 2000

In May 2005, the Gene Technology Ministerial Council (Department of Health and Ageing, 2005c) announced a review of the Gene Technology Act 2000 as required by Section 194 of the Act. An independent (from the OGTR) panel of three was selected by the Gene Technology Ministerial Council to review the Act. This review is considering the scope of the Act (especially whether it should explicitly address the economic and social impacts of gene technology), determining whether the Act is achieving its aims, investigating the regulatory burden, examining the interface with other regulatory systems in Australia, considering the effect of changing circumstances and, if necessary, will recommend changes to the legislation (Department of Health and Ageing, 2005b). Over three hundred submissions were received and used to formulate discussion questions for the public hearings throughout the country (Department of Health and Ageing, 2005c). A series of hearings were held in Canberra, Clare Valley, Adelaide, Perth, Brisbane, Townsville, Narrabri, Sydney, Melbourne, Horsham, Hobart and Darwin from October to December 2005.

The public hearing in Perth was held at the Duxton Hotel in Perth on 27 October 2005, and was attended by one of the authors. It was also attended by 23 stakeholders and community members (Department of Health and Ageing, 2006: 115-6), two of the three members of the review panel and a secretariat member supporting the panel. The meeting was first addressed by the Chair of the review panel, who set out the purpose of the review, and the agenda and guidelines for the hearing.

Following this initial overview, three speakers from government and industry addressed the audience. There were no speakers from environmental or consumer groups, hence, the views put were fairly narrow in scope and set the theme for the very limited discussion that followed. The first speaker was a representative from the OGTR secretariat, who simply outlined the institutional framework for gene technology in Australia. The second speaker was a representative from an industry group, the Combined Bulk Handling Group. This speaker claimed ambivalence towards the introduction of GM organisms and products, and was prepared to let individual farmers and the market decide whether the move into GM crops should proceed. As far as the purity of non-GM crops was concerned, the speaker claimed that the Combined Bulk Handling Group could guarantee the purity of the product once it entered its internal supply chain. The third speaker from the Network of Concerned Farmers (http://www.non-gm-farmers.com/) was somewhat skeptical of the claims made by the previous speaker, especially those concerned with the possibility of contamination of non-GM crops. The speaker was particularly concerned that liability for maintaining the purity of the product resided with the farmer of non-GM products, not with those producing what the law regards as a contaminant, that is, the GM crop transferred from one field to another.

The floor was then opened up to get feedback on points raised in the submissions; however, there was little discussion. One reason may be the relatively small number of people who attended the hearing. This may be due, in part, to confusion over when the hearing was to be held. The Department of Health and Ageing (2005a) website stated that the hearing was to be held from 1 to 3 p.m. In fact, it was held between 10 a.m. and noon. While subscribers to the OGTR's notification list were aware of the correct time, people who consulted the Department's website may have turned up at the later time. The website was amended soon after one of the authors notified the Department of the error.

The Chair also did little to stimulate discussion. In most cases, the Chair respectfully thanked participants for their comments, asked if anyone had anything further to add and, if not, moved on to the next point. Furthermore, there was little indication that the OGTR secretariat or the review panel members were taking extensive notes of the proceedings. When asked after the hearing about whether there were minutes taken of the hearing, the Chair responded that they take occasional notes, if they hear something that they find interesting.

It is also possible that potential discussion by the lay public was quashed by the dominance of stakeholders with specific interests over ordinary community. Carson and Martin (2002: 106) have noted that "vested interests" can be a problem when choosing advisory panels for citizens' juries and it was evident that these groups were determined to make their claims heard at this meeting. This is unfortunate, as some of these stakeholders had already had an opportunity to speak privately to the review panel the previous day.

The site where the forum was held might also have shaken the confidence of those members of the community who attended. The exclusive Duxton Hotel is centrally located in the city and likely convenient for most of the stakeholders. Such a venue is not, however, the most conducive for stimulating discussion among lay members of the community. Such surroundings can be forbidding and not conducive to open discussion. Certainly, only two members of the community who did not identify an affiliation felt sufficiently confident to speak.

Our analysis of the Gene Technology Act 2000 and its application by the OGTR and the Commonwealth Department of Health and Ageing has focused on community involvement in gene technology policy. It is not intended to bring into question the competencies of the agency and department in applying the Act as it stands. Instead, it seeks to explain how the content of the Act, a particular reading of the Act and attitudes towards community involvement have effectively excluded community members (as distinct from stakeholders with vested interests) from participating in biotechnology policy.

Review of the Regulator by the Australian National Audit Office

The impact of the institutional design on community involvement in biotechnology was particularly evident in the audit of the OGTR undertaken by the Australian National Audit Office (ANAO) in 2004-5. In its final report, the ANAO (2005: 28) stated that the OGTR was audited for four reasons. First, an audit was warranted because the OGTR plays a key role with respect to "public health and environmental matters." Second, the OGTR had not been previously audited. Third, an audit was a necessary response to the public interest in gene technology, "particularly over field trials of genetically modified (GM) agricultural crops." Fourth, the audit was expected to contribute to the statutory review of the gene technology regulatory framework that was due to commence in mid-2005.

While the ANAO (2005: 20) was generally satisfied that the OGTR was managed effectively and efficiently and that the sector was being regulated in accordance with the Gene Technology Act 2000, the ANAO (2005: 101) expressed concern that the OGTR took so long to report to Parliament. Although the OGTR is not required to release its quarterly reports by a particular time, the ANAO noted that they "are not usually published until at least the end of the following quarter." Hence, even in terms of alleviating cognitive deficit, the OGTR had not provided the community with information as quickly as it ought.

The ANAO paid little attention, however, to the OGTR's performance in promoting community involvement in biotechnology and, instead, followed accepted auditing practice and concerned itself primarily with the systems and procedures established by the OGTR to manage the assessment of applications and compliance with its orders. Nevertheless, the ANAO (2005: 29) implicitly acknowledged that it could assess other "selected aspects" of the work undertaken by the OGTR and determine whether these were managed "efficiently and effectively." In other words, it could also have commented on the management and performance of the three committees, including the GTCCC. For example, it might have noted that while a communiqué of each GTCCC is supposed to be available to the lay public on the OGTR website "within 48 hours &...; where possible" (OGTR, 2002b: 8), these usually became available just before the following meeting. Instead, the report mentions the GTCCC fleetingly with respect to its formal functions.

Looking ahead: reviewing the Gene Technology Act 2000

As we explained above, an independent review of the operation of the Gene Technology Act 2000 and of the OGTR began in mid-2005. If the independent review panel is interested in achieving the authentic community involvement in gene technology policy which is permitted in the Act, then it needs to establish appropriate mechanisms. The design of these mechanisms needs to provide clear and precise instructions that require the OGTR, the GTCCC and the Gene Technology Ethics Committee to engage with the wider community and "interested publics." In this section, we make five recommendations that will enhance genuine community involvement in Australian biotechnology policy.

Adopt a broader concept of risk

A broader concept of risk needs to be adopted to accommodate the broad range of interests and concerns within the community. Currently, the concept of risk in the Act is narrowly interpreted to pertain solely to matters pertaining to health and safety of people and the environment. In fact, Section 51 of the Act (Commonwealth of Australia, 2000) states that

(1) In preparing the risk assessment in relation to the dealings proposed to be authorised by the licence, the Regulator must take into account the following:

(a) the risks posed by those dealings, including any risks to the health and safety of people or risks to the environment, having regard to the matters mentioned in paragraphs 49(2)(a) to (f).

There is nothing in the section that precludes the Regulator from adopting a broader concept of risk to include, for example, economic issues. The Act simply states that the Regulator's assessments must include risks associated with human health and safety and the environment. It may also include other risks. If these others risks are precluded from the Regulator's assessments, then many people in the community are effectively excluded from participating in gene technology policy. Thus, we recommend that the Act be revised to incorporate an explicit statement that the Regulator must take into account social and economic risks.

Institute gene technology committees of equal standing

To facilitate genuine community involvement, the Gene Technology Act 2000 needs to be amended so that the GTCCC and Gene Technology Ethics Committee have the same standing as the Gene Technology Technical Advisory Committee. A statutory requirement would require the Regulator to consult with the GTCCC and Gene Technology Ethics Committee on each application for a license to release GM organisms and products into the environment, as well as for approval for research operations in contained environments. This would also be necessary for a thorough assessment of the risks associated with applications. Although members of the Gene Technology Technical Advisory Committee are well qualified to assess technical risks, they may be less able to address social and economic risks.

While some may not support the likely delay of approval of applications, it may actually reduce general political opposition to GM organisms and products and the time spent seeking the support of political leaders. This is evidenced, for example, by the current moratoria on the open release of GM canola in all Australian states. It has undoubtedly delayed the development of the GM canola industry in Australia much more than could any ethics or community-oriented committee. Moreover, the Regulator would only be obliged to consider the recommendations of the Gene Technology Ethics Committee and the GTCCC and justify reasons for accepting or rejecting these recommendations. The Regulator would retain responsibility for the final decision, as is now the case.

Embrace disagreement and conflict

The operating procedures of the respective committees must be relaxed to allow members to communicate with the wider community about committee matters. This is not to say that committee members should betray confidences: rather that people should be made aware that the committee members represent a wide range of views, that views similar to their own are being expressed in committee meetings, that there are differences of opinions, and that the committees are not rubber stamps for government policy.

To this end, the OGTR and the overseeing Gene Technology Ministerial Council need to accept that disagreement and conflict are integral to policy areas characterized by great uncertainty and risk: this is part and parcel of living in a pluralistic democracy. Attempts to dampen down the social and economic dimensions of gene technology will only serve to heighten current concerns and lead people to question the legitimacy of policy decisions. The cases of air pollution [START_REF] Bush | Keeping the Public Informed? Public Negotiation of Air Quality Information[END_REF] and bovine spongiform encephalopathy [START_REF] Jasanoff | Civilization and Madness: The Great BSE Scare of 1996[END_REF] in the United Kingdom highlight the backlash against governments that ensues if governments endeavor to "cover up" what the community perceives to be the truth. Moreover, such cases reinforce views that governments cannot be trusted and may promote a general hostility towards experts, science and technology.

Use the Web effectively

Although the OGTR uses its website to inform interested publics of forthcoming applications and the regulation of gene technology, it needs to make greater use of the Web to make public its deliberations and those of the committees, as well as encourage community involvement in biotechnology policy. As explained above, the communiqués of the GTCCC's meetings were not entirely revealing as to why the Committee came to particular conclusions. Furthermore, it is not clear what the Committee actually achieved in the first three years. It is not being suggested that the Committee did nothing or achieved nothing, but it would be more evident if working papers, even drafts, were published on the OGTR website. To these might be added the agenda of all Committee meetings.

Another obvious way to generate community involvement is through a discussion forum. People could submit queries to the OGTR and Committee secretariats, as well as to individual Committee members. They could also engage with other community-minded individuals on gene technology issues. While this would be time consuming for the secretariats and may necessitate the expansion of the OGTR, such a forum could become a hub for information exchange that policymakers could access.

Develop a framework of community involvement

The OGTR must establish a framework to determine the appropriate mechanism for community involvement in each case and evaluate the effectiveness of each exercise. If the Regulator required expert advice on a particularly esoteric technical matter that went beyond even the scope of the Gene Technology Technical Advisory Committee, then it would be more appropriate to establish an expert panel than a citizens' jury. If, on the other hand, there was great uncertainty and conjecture about an issue that had entered the public domain, then a citizens' jury or consensus conference may be more applicable. Research has commenced in this area and the OGTR and the GTCCC would do well to consider this literature (Citizens and Civics Unit, 2003;Rowe andFrewer, 2005, 2004).

It might also be worth considering incorporating into the Gene Technology Act 2000 a section pertaining specifically to community involvement in decision-making. Here, Norway's Environmental Information Act could serve as a template. Section 20 of the Environmental Information Act requires government agencies to "make provision" for community involvement in the formulation of environmental plans, legislation and policies and have "real opportunities to influence the decisions that are made" (Ministry of the Environment, 2003). Most importantly, "it shall be clear how the requirements of this provision have been met, and how comments and other input from the public have been evaluated." Many participants and other interested people in the community will remain skeptical until the policy process is fully transparent and they can see why proposals/suggestions have been accepted or rejected. Only then will policy decisions be widely regarded as legitimate.

Conclusion

In this article, we returned to the case of community involvement in Australian biotechnology policy assessed earlier by [START_REF] Dietrich | Beyond Public Perception of Gene Technology: Community Participation in Public Policy in Australia[END_REF] and argued that it has been undermined, at least in part, by institutional design. We described the institutional framework that has been established to regulate gene technology, the legislation on which the framework is based and the roles of the constituent bodies. In particular, the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator (OGTR) and the Gene Technology Community Consultative Committee (GTCCC) were identified as having the most potential to initiate and further community interest and participation in gene technology policy. We then explained how the Gene Technology Act 2000 relegates the GTCCC and the Gene Technology Ethics Committee and hence, community involvement, to a secondary position behind the Gene Technology Technical Advisory Committee. We also explained how the GTCCC has been hamstrung by restrictive operating procedures designed to depoliticize biotechnology policy, but also serve to obscure the operations of the Committee. Meanwhile, the OGTR provides considerable material in keeping with the cognitive deficit model and does little to facilitate a dialogue with the community. The general reluctance to involve the community in biotechnology policy was shown to be particularly evident during a public hearing as part of the review of the Gene Technology Act 2000. Finally, we proposed a series of changes to the institutional framework that we feel will open up Australian biotechnology policy to the wider community.

Public Understanding of Science 16(2)

Public Understanding of Science 16(2)

Public Understanding of Science 16(2)

Authors

Renato Schibeci is Associate Professor in science education at Murdoch University. His research for the past decade has focused on the public understanding of science and technology and community engagement with biotechnology policy. Most recently, he was team leader for one of three subprojects, the production of high school food science and biotechnology materials for students and teachers, which comprised the Australian Government Science Lectureships Initiative project From Farm to Plate. Correspondence: Murdoch University, Murdoch, Western Australia 6150, Australia; e-mail: R.Schibeci@murdoch.edu.au Jeffrey Harwood is a political scientist at Murdoch University with research interests in problem definition and agenda-setting, biotechnology policy, the public understanding of science and technology, and the social and cultural dimensions of risk analysis.