Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University, Palisades, New York, United States of America.
American Museum of Natural History, New York, New York, United States of America.
PLoS One. 2021 Apr 28;16(4):e0250023. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0250023. eCollection 2021.
Public involvement is key to closing the gap between research production and research use, and the only way to achieving ultimate transparency in science. The majority of life science research is not public-facing, but is funded by the public and impacts communities. We undertook an exploratory survey of researchers within the life sciences to better understand their views and perceived challenges to involving the public in their research. As survey response rate could not be determined, interpretation of the results must be cautious. We had a valid response cohort of n = 110 researchers, of whom 90% were primarily laboratory based. Using a mixed methods approach, we demonstrate that a top-down approach is key to motivate progression of life scientists from feeling positive towards public involvement to actually engaging in it. Researchers who viewed public involvement as beneficial to their research were more likely to have direct experience of doing it. We demonstrate that the systemic flaws in the way life sciences research enterprise is organised, including the promotion system, hyper-competition, and time pressures are major barriers to involving the public in the scientific process. Scientists are also apprehensive of being involuntarily involved in the current politicized climate; misinformation and publicity hype surrounding science nowadays makes them hesitant to share their early and in-progress research. The time required to deliberate study design and relevance, plan and build relationships for sustained involvement, provide and undertake training, and improve communication in the current research environment is often considered nonpragmatic, particularly for early career researchers. In conclusion, a top-down approach involving institutional incentives and infrastructure appears most effective at transitioning researchers from feeling positive towards public involvement to actually implementing it.
公众参与是缩小研究产出与研究应用之间差距的关键，也是实现科学最终透明度的唯一途径。大多数生命科学研究都不是面向公众的，但它由公众资助并影响社区。我们对生命科学领域的研究人员进行了一项探索性调查，以更好地了解他们对公众参与研究的看法和感知到的挑战。由于无法确定调查的回复率，因此必须谨慎解释结果。我们有一个有效的有效回复者群体，n = 110 名研究人员，其中 90%主要是实验室基础。我们采用混合方法，表明自上而下的方法是推动生命科学家从对公众参与持积极态度转变为实际参与的关键。认为公众参与对其研究有益的研究人员更有可能直接参与其中。我们表明，生命科学研究企业组织方式中的系统缺陷，包括晋升制度、过度竞争和时间压力，是将公众纳入科学过程的主要障碍。科学家也对在当前政治化的环境中被迫参与感到担忧；当今围绕科学的错误信息和宣传炒作使他们不愿分享早期和正在进行的研究。在当前的研究环境中，需要花时间仔细考虑研究设计和相关性、计划和建立可持续参与的关系、提供和进行培训以及改进沟通，这通常被认为不切实际，尤其是对于早期职业研究人员。总之，自上而下的方法，包括机构激励和基础设施，似乎最能促使研究人员从对公众参与持积极态度转变为实际实施。
