This article considers the impact values attributed to public engagement with science and technology (PEST) as articulated by a cohort of U.K.-based medical researchers ( n = 84) within a partially open-ended survey. Two discrete yet interlinking impact categories emerge—impact of PEST on researchers and the research process and impact of PEST on the public image and reputation of research/researchers. These accounts reveal a limited sentiment among medical researchers for PEST envisaged as “upstream” and leading to public/patient collaboration and suggest that PEST is encouraged more frequently in the promotion and defense of medical science within the public sphere.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Richard Watermeyer (2012) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 3 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: