You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output.
Click here to find out more.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Towards inclusive social appraisal: risk, participation and democracy in governance of synthetic biology
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Proceedings, July 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12919-018-0111-3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Andrew Stirling, K. R. Hayes, Jason Delborne |
| Abstract |
Frameworks that govern the development and application of novel products, such as the products of synthetic biology, should involve all those who are interested or potentially affected by the products. The governance arrangements for novel products should also provide a democratic mechanism that allows affected parties to express their opinions on the direction that innovation does or does not take. In this paper we examine rationales, obstacles and opportunities for public participation in governance of novel synthetic biology products. Our analysis addresses issues such as uncertainties, the considering of alternative innovations, and broader social and environmental implications. The crucial issues in play go beyond safety alone, to include contending social values around diverse notions of benefit and harm. The paper highlights the need for more inclusive social appraisal mechanisms to inform governance of Synthetic Biology and alternative products, and discusses a few practical methods to help achieve this goal. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 4 | 36% |
| United States | 2 | 18% |
| Unknown | 5 | 45% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 8 | 73% |
| Scientists | 3 | 27% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 56 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 56 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 11 | 20% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 10 | 18% |
| Other | 6 | 11% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 4 | 7% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 5% |
| Other | 9 | 16% |
| Unknown | 13 | 23% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Social Sciences | 13 | 23% |
| Environmental Science | 7 | 13% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 6 | 11% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 3 | 5% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 6 | 11% |
| Unknown | 19 | 34% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 18 May 2021.
All research outputs
#2,816,172
of 25,292,646 outputs
Outputs from BMC Proceedings
#30
of 400 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#54,356
of 335,603 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Proceedings
#6
of 11 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,292,646 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 400 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 335,603 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 11 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% of its contemporaries.