Assessing solar geoengineering research funders: Insights from two US public deliberations

Solar radiation management (SRM), a class of geoengineering methods aiming to alter the earth’s radiative energy balance, carries uncertain and potentially extensive social, ethical, and environmental consequences. For both normative and pragmatic reasons, actors interested in SRM research and implementation would do well to attend to public preferences and concerns regarding SRM work. But despite growing literature treating public perspectives on SRM governance, little is known about public perceptions or preferences regarding potential SRM research funders. Specific research funders could significantly affect both the varieties, scales, and aims of research performed and public responses to SRM research. Drawing from two deliberative public forums on SRM research involving 171 participants in total, this paper begins to fill this gap in the literature. Results reveal diverse and nuanced modes of participant reasoning regarding potential research funders. Among other criteria, participants evaluated funders according to perceived funding capabilities, motivations, and research competencies. Our results significantly expand knowledge on public views, preferences, and modes of reasoning regarding SRM research actors and funders.