Collaboration Matters: Honey Bee Health as a Transdisciplinary Model for Understanding Real-World Complexity

Suryanarayanan, Sainath; Kleinman, Daniel Lee; Gratton, Claudio; Toth, Amy L.; Guédot, Christelle; Groves, Russell L.; Piechowski, John; Moore, Brad; Hagedorn, Deborah; Kauth, Dayton; Swan, H.; Celley, Mary

doi:10.1093/biosci/biy118

Cited by 12 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Scientists can also collaborate directly with members of the public through community-based participatory research (CBPR) efforts. Research projects that link scientists with community members have proven very valuable in uncovering environmental health threats, empowering public groups with the knowledge they need to take action in response, and in helping researchers direct their work in ways that are most relevant to affected communities (see e.g., Corburn 2005; Ottinger and Cohen 2011; Suryanarayanan et al. 2018).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Making Open Science Work for Science and Society

Elliott

Resnik

2019

Environ Health Perspect

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background:The open science movement is transforming scientific practice with the goal of enhancing the transparency, productivity, and reproducibility of research. Nevertheless, transparency is a complex concept, and efforts to promote some forms of transparency may do relatively little to advance other important forms of transparency.Objectives:Drawing from the literature in history, philosophy, and sociology of science, we aim to distinguish between different forms of scientific transparency. Our goal is to identify strategies for achieving forms of transparency that are relevant not only to scientists but also to decision makers and members of the public.Discussion:We draw a distinction between “scientifically relevant transparency” and “socially relevant transparency.” Most of the prominent strategies associated with the open science movement (e.g., making data publicly available and registering studies) are designed primarily to promote scientifically relevant transparency. To achieve socially relevant transparency, which is particularly important in fields like environmental health, further steps are needed to provide scientific information in ways that are relevant to decision makers and members of the public.Conclusions:Promoting socially relevant transparency will require a range of activities by many different individuals and institutions. We propose an array of strategies that can be pursued by scientists and other scholars, journals, universities, funders, government agencies, and members of the public. https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP4808

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Making Open Science Work for Science and Society

Elliott

Resnik

2019

Environ Health Perspect

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The shift in collaborative dynamics that our study initiated is arguably the kind of meaningful change that needs to occur for substantial longer-term changes in how practitioners in academic, governmental, and industry sectors respond to complex phenomena such as increased honey bee deaths. To this end, our study provides a template (for more details, see Suryanarayanan et al [2018]) for structuring future collaborations between scientists and nonscientists that set the stage for breakthroughs in the development of better and fairer approaches to complex phenomena of public concern.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Pollinating Collaboration: Diverse Stakeholders’ Efforts to Build Experiments in the Wake of the Honey Bee Crisis

Kleinman¹,

Suryanarayanan

2019

Science, Technology, & Human Values

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We explored collaboration between scientists and nonscientists through a deliberative process in which stakeholders interested in the health challenges of honey bees gathered on four occasions over two years to design, carry out, and analyze a set of field experiments on honey bee health. We found that issues of trust and authority were crucial matters in constraining and enabling dialogue among our deliberants. Over the course of our deliberations, participants’ trust for one another and appreciation of their respective interests grew, and differences in professional status appeared to play an increasingly less important role in shaping discussion. The field experiments that deliberants crafted and collectively organized over time became an engagement object that was crucial in altering the dynamics of trust and authority. We understand engagement objects as entities that stakeholders with diverse interests, experiences, and expertise collectively build over time to collectively solve overlapping, interacting problems.

show abstract

“…For example, scientists can incorporate members of the public in community‐based participatory research projects (e.g. Suryanarayanan et al., ); social scientists can elicit views from members of the public about scientific issues (e.g. Davies et al., ); scholars from different disciplinary backgrounds or employment sectors can collaborate to help uncover important assumptions (Hartley and Kokotovich, ); and citizen groups and scholars can scrutinise the laws, regulatory requirements, standards, and other institutional policies that steer value‐laden judgements in science and risk assessment (e.g.…”

Section: Fit‐for‐purpose Food Safety Risk Assessmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Conducting fit‐for‐purpose food safety risk assessments

Devos

Elliott

Macdonald

et al. 2019

EFS2

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The interplay between science, risk assessment and risk management has always been complex, and even more so in a world increasingly characterised by rapid technical innovation, new modes of communication, suspicion about authorities and experts, and demands for people to have a say in decisions that are made on their behalf. In this challenging era where scientific advice on food safety has never been in greater demand, risk managers should effectively navigate the interplay between facts and values and be able to rely on robust and fit-for-purpose risk assessments to aid them. The fact that societal resistance is often encountered when scientific advice on food safety operates at a distance from social values and fails to actively engage with citizens, has led to increasing emphasis on the need to advance forms of risk assessment that are more contextual, and socially sound and accountable. EFSA's third Scientific Conference explored how risk assessments could be constructed to most usefully meet society's needs and thus connect science with society, while remaining scientifically robust. Contributors to the conference highlighted the need to: (1) frame risk assessments by clear policy goals and decision-making criteria; (2) begin risk assessments with an explicit problem formulation to identify relevant information; (3) make use of reliable risk assessment studies; (4) be explicit about value judgements; (5) address and communicate scientific uncertainty; (6) follow trustworthy processes; (7) publish the evidence and data, and report the way in which they are used in a transparent manner; (8) ensure effective communication throughout the risk analysis process; (9) involve society, as appropriate; and (10) weigh risks and benefits on request. Implementation of these recommendations would contribute to increased credibility and trustworthiness of food safety risk assessments.

show abstract

Collaboration Matters: Honey Bee Health as a Transdisciplinary Model for Understanding Real-World Complexity

Cited by 12 publications

References 12 publications

Making Open Science Work for Science and Society

Making Open Science Work for Science and Society

Pollinating Collaboration: Diverse Stakeholders’ Efforts to Build Experiments in the Wake of the Honey Bee Crisis

Conducting fit‐for‐purpose food safety risk assessments

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About