Search

Science communication is a core skill for undergraduate science students to acquire in preparation for their future careers, but studies show that this skill is underdeveloped in science graduates. The aim of this study was to discover the resources and approaches undergraduate students use to effectively develop their science communication skills and how the use of these methods relates to academic performance on a communication task. Undergraduate students undertaking a second-year biomedical science course ( n = 490) were asked which approaches and resources they used to aid the development of their science communication skills, and the frequency of their responses was correlated against their laboratory report mark, using multiple regression and relative weights analysis. Students' ( n = 453) use of Communication Learning in Practice for Scientists (CLIPS; an open-access interactive website on science communication), resources provided by the university, interactions with university teaching staff, and engagement with the scientific literature significantly predicted the laboratory report mark. Students enrolled in a blended format or in remote online learning only, and in different programs, performed comparably in the written report and used similar approaches and resources, other than remote students reporting more use of other online resources and students in blended learning engaging more with university resources. Together, these findings provide insight into which strategies are most helpful for undergraduate students to engage with to improve their scientific communication skills. The findings highlight that the provision of well-designed interactive communication resources, guided assessment resources, and opportunities to engage with teaching staff can assist in the development of science communication skills. NEW & NOTEWORTHY This study identifies the approaches and resources that undergraduate science students use to develop their science communication skills. It reveals which of these approaches and resources predict improved academic performance in a written science communication assessment task. The findings point to the importance of explicit guidance, and engagement with teaching staff, in advancing the development of science communication skills.

In the context of science communication, complexity is often reduced. This study employs a 2 × 2 experimental design ( N = 432) to investigate how two factors, namely the communication of complexity (reduced vs not reduced) and the provision of suggestions for concrete action (suggested vs not suggested), influence individuals' productive engagement with the socio-scientific topic of sustainable energy. Measured variables include topic-specific intellectual humility, judgements of source trustworthiness, willingness to act, anxiety, and hope. As expected, communication of complexity led to higher topic-specific intellectual humility, higher epistemic trustworthiness and higher anxiety. When a concrete action was communicated, participants reported lower topic-specific intellectual humility. Participants' willingness to act was not significantly affected by the experimental manipulation. The results of the study imply that the communication of complexity does not hinder people's productive engagement with science., Competing Interests: Declaration of conflicting interestsThe author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

Scientific findings can be overturned when new evidence arises. This study examines how communicating and explaining uncertainty around scientific findings affect trust in the communicator when findings change. In an online experiment ( N = 800, convenience sample), participants read a fictitious statement from a public health authority announcing that there was no link between a new COVID-19 vaccine and heart muscle inflammation. The authority communicated (1) no uncertainty, (2) uncertainty without giving a reason, (3) uncertainty due to imprecision, or (4) uncertainty due to incomplete accounting of patients. Participants were then informed that the authority's statement was no longer correct as new data showed a link between the vaccine and heart muscle inflammation. Participants rated the authority's trustworthiness before and after the evidence update. Our findings indicate that communicating uncertainty buffers against a loss of trust when evidence changes. Moreover, explaining uncertainty does not appear to harm trust.

In this paper, I develop and defend a moralized conception of epistemic trust in science against a particular kind of non-moral account defended by John (2015, 2018). I suggest that non-epistemic value considerations, non-epistemic norms of communication and affective trust properly characterize the relationship of epistemic trust between scientific experts and non-experts. I argue that it is through a moralized account of epistemic trust in science that we can make sense of the deep-seated moral undertones that are often at play when non-experts (dis)trust science., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

During a public health crisis like the COVID-19 pandemic, the public health authorities will typically be criticized for their efforts. When such criticism comes from the ranks of medical personnel, the challenge becomes more pronounced for the authorities, as it suggests a public negotiation of who has sufficient expertise to handle the pandemic. Hence, the authorities are faced with the challenge of defending their competence and advice, while at the same time adhering to a bureaucratic/scientific ethos that imposes communicative boundaries. This explorative study analyzes the response strategies used by the Norwegian public health authorities in this regard. A main finding is that the authorities shunned aggressive language and mostly relied on a strategy pointing to well-established values such as proportionality (between the measures and the gravitas of the epidemiological situation) and relevance (the measures should meet the challenge in question)., Competing Interests: Declaration of conflicting interestsThe author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Despite its public visibility and impact on policy, the activity of expert communication rarely receives more than a passing mention in codes of scientific integrity. This paper makes the case for an ethics of expert communication, introducing a framework where expert communication is represented as an intrinsically ethical activity of a deliberative agent. Ethical expert communication cannot be ensured by complying with various requirements, such as restricting communications to one's area of expertise or disclosing conflicts of interest. Expert communication involves morally laden trade-offs that must be weighed by a deliberative agent. A basic normative framework is introduced, and concrete provisions are proposed for codes of scientific integrity., (© 2023 The Authors. Bioethics published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Climate scientists face many challenges when it comes to communicating their work to the public, yet it is largely unknown how junior climate scientists give meaning to their role as science communicators. Therefore, the current research conducted five focus group discussions with Dutch junior climate scientists, which were structured around the following themes: (a) common barriers; (b) climate advocacy; (c) message content; and (d) climate skepticism, misinformation, and incivility. The results reveal the motivations and barriers for junior climate scientists to do science communication. New barriers were identified relating to participants' lack of seniority, meaning a self-attributed lack of expertise and not having established their scientific credentials yet, providing evidence for the imposter syndrome. Furthermore, many participants alluded to the information-deficit model and indicated they do not know where to start with science communication. Overall, the findings show uncertainty, which could be mitigated by media training and institutionalized incentives.

This exploratory article provides groundwork towards a tentative framework for exploring how lay measures and units - what is here called 'lay metrology' - intersect with formal metrology, and its various mediations. This article concerns itself with the role that everyday 'units' - grounded in part in the material culture of bodies and experience - play in relation to a metrological landscape, or 'metroscape' that is also inhabited by standardised units routinely popularised through various media. After a brief overview of the relevant literature on metrology, examples of lay metrology are provided that examine the relation of everyday units of, for example, length and area, to particular forms of bodily experience, social identity and sensorial capacities. This article draws on elements from science communication and affect theory to develop the notion of 'metroscoping' and to articulate a series of orienting questions for engaging with lay metrological processes.

Background: The public is often exposed to conflicting health information, with evidence of concerning consequences, yet little attention has been paid to identifying strategies that can mitigate its effects., Objective: The current study tests whether three different approaches to communicating about the process of scientific discovery-a rational appeal using analogical evidence, a rational appeal using testimonial evidence, and a logic-based inoculation approach-could reduce the adverse effects of exposure to conflict by positively framing how people construe the scientific process, increasing their perceived knowledge about the scientific process, and helping them to respond to critiques about the scientific process, which, in turn, might make them less apt to counterargue the science they subsequently encounter in health news stories and other exposures to conflict., Methods: We fielded a survey experiment in May 2022 with a national sample of U.S. adults (N = 1604)., Results: Providing any of the three messages about science prior to exposure to conflicting health information encouraged both positive construal of science and greater science knowledge perceptions and discouraged counterarguing science, compared to a control condition in which people were only exposed to conflict. Of the three messaging approaches tested, the testimonial evidence message was slightly more effective, but was also considered slightly more accurate, credible, and trustworthy., Conclusions: Developing and implementing messages that describe the process of scientific discovery could prove successful, not only in improving public perceptions of science but perhaps ultimately in better equipping people to make sense of conflicting information and its causes. However, additional research on such strategies is needed, particularly as part of larger interventions with multiple messages across multiple exposures, if they are to have implications for health and science communication., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Videos and podcasts have become popular in nutrition communication. However, it is unclear whether they are more effective than online texts in conveying knowledge and promoting behavioural intentions. Based on the Cognitive Theory of Multimedia Learning, it was hypothesised that videos are more effective than podcasts or texts in communicating nutrition-related information. In addition, differences in behaviour change intentions were explored. The pre-registered online experiment used a 3 (medium: video, podcast and text) × 3 (topic: diet and climate change, sugar content, and nudging) between-subjects design with 320 participants who were randomly assigned to the conditions. After receiving the respective content, the participants' intention to change their behaviour accordingly and their knowledge about all topics were assessed. A mixed Analysis of Variance revealed a significant interaction of topic and knowledge, indicating that knowledge was higher for the topic that participants were assigned to, compared to the two topics they received no information about. There were no differences in knowledge or intention for the three media. Videos, podcasts and texts are equally suitable for conveying nutrition knowledge and may also be equally beneficial for promoting intention. Communicators may thus base their choice of medium on considerations like available resources and preferences of the target group., (© 2022 The Authors. Applied Psychology: Health and Well-Being published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of International Association of Applied Psychology.)

Scientific-consensus communication is among the most promising interventions to minimize the gap between experts' and the public's belief in scientific facts. There is, however, discussion about its effectiveness in changing consensus perceptions and beliefs about contested science topics. This preregistered meta-analysis assessed the effects of communicating the existence of scientific consensus on perceived scientific consensus and belief in scientific facts. Combining 43 experiments about climate change, genetically modified food, and vaccination, we found that a single exposure to consensus messaging had a positive effect on perceived scientific consensus ( g = 0.55) and on belief in scientific facts ( g = 0.12). Consensus communication yielded very similar effects for climate change and genetically modified food, whereas the low number of experiments about vaccination prevented conclusions regarding this topic. Although these effects are small, communicating scientific consensus appears to be an effective way to change factual beliefs about contested science topics.

This essay argues that we should treat science and risk communicators' choices about tactics, objectives, and goals as behaviors to advance both research and practice. Doing so allows for a discussion about how to use theories about behavior change and trust-building to help foster more strategic communication choices. The essay also seeks to anticipate and respond to potential arguments against using behavior change theories to encourage more strategic communication choices. We argue that it is possible to use behavior change tactics ethically if those tactics are aimed at increasing the likelihood that all participants in communication-including decisions makers like risk scientists-meaningfully engage with true, relevant information. Under the right conditions, such engagement is what should allow for the development of new knowledge, as well as a range of evidence-based evaluative beliefs, feelings, and frames. Being strategic when making choices about communication should also help with identifying situations in which justice, equity, diversity, or inclusion issues require additional attention. The essay concludes by noting that the difficulty of efficient and effective science and risk communication may require increased emphasis on getting experts such as scientists to collaborate with expert communication advisors. It may also be necessary to increase the capacity of science- and risk-focused communication practitioners., (© 2022 The Authors. Risk Analysis published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of Society for Risk Analysis.)

Drawing has played a key role in the development and dissemination of Medicine and Surgery, such as to share anatomy, pathology, and techniques for clinical interventions. While many of the visuals used in medicine today are created by medical illustration professionals, and by imaging techniques such as photography and radiography; many doctors continue to draw routinely in their clinical practice. This is known to be valued by patients, for example when making informed decisions about care. We surveyed doctors in New Zealand online regarding their use of drawing to explore the prevalence of this practice. 472 complete responses were obtained over 3 months. There were very high rates of drawing among responding doctors practicing in both medical and surgical specialties. Reasons for drawing are explored and included professional, collegial, and patient communication, supporting informed consent, clinical documentation, and for planning procedures. Widespread use of drawing in clinical practice, almost non-existent training or support for this in digital workflows, and high interest in resources to develop clinical drawing skills, suggest unmet training needs for this practical clinical communication tool.

The mental models that individual scholars have of science communication - how it works, what it is supposed to achieve and so on - shape the way these academics actually communicate to the public. But these mental models, and their prevalence among scholars, have rarely been analysed. Drawing on a large-scale, representative web survey of academics at universities in Germany, Austria and Switzerland ( n  = 15,778) from 2020, we identify three mental models that are prevalent among scholars, and that correspond to conceptual models found in science communication theory: 'Public Understanding of Science', 'Public Engagement with Science' and 'Strategic Science Communication'. The results suggest that the 'Strategic Science Communication' model is particularly prevalent among academics in precarious employment and female scholars. Extrinsically motivated academics, that is, those under pressure to win grants, also seem to use science communication more strategically. The 'Public Engagement' model is prevalent among older and female scholars, while 'Public Understanding' is particularly prevalent among scholars who find their work especially meaningful. Findings also reveal that academics' mental models largely align with the way they practice science communication.

Healthcare research is traditionally published in academic papers, coded in scientific language, and locked behind paywalls - an inaccessible form for many. Sharing research results with participants and the public in an appropriate, accessible manner, is an ethical practice directed in research guidance. Evidence-based recommendations for the medium used are scant, but science communication advice advocates principles which may be fulfilled well by the medium of comics. We report a randomised crossover study conducted online, comparing participant preferences for research results shared in the medium of a comic, a traditional lay text summary, and the control approach of a scientific abstract. 1236 respondents read all three summaries and ranked their most and least preferred formats. For the most preferred summary, the comic was chosen by 716 (57.9%), lay summary by 321 (26.0%), and scientific abstract by 199 (16.1%) respondents. For the least preferred summary the scientific abstract was chosen by 614 (49.7%), lay summary by 380 (30.7%) and comic by 242 (19.6%). Review of free-text responses identified key reasons for the majority preferring the comic over the others, which included finding this easier to read and understand, more enjoyable to consume, and more satisfactory as a medium of communication.

Over the past years, pundits, journalists, and others have diagnosed fundamental shifts in the public's perception of science. Many of them have posited that audiences are becoming more critical toward science or that people trust science less. However, systematic empirical analyses of such assertions are lacking. Based on panel survey data ( N  = 339) and segmentation analysis, we investigate migration between four segments of the Swiss population over 3 years. We find that 45% of participants changed their attitude between 2016 and 2019 to such an extent that they got assigned to a more positive or more critical audience segment. The majority of them migrated to more critical segments, which is in line with assumptions of fundamental shifts in the public's perception of science.

This research note reports empirical observations on public communication of research institutes within universities, using data from an international quantitative study in eight countries ( N  = 2030). The note aims to contribute to discussions on the role of science communication at research universities. We observe growing science communication at the institute level, which indicates, at a first glance, a trend towards decentralised communication of science. We argue that these might be places where science communication and public engagement can thrive. Rather than claiming to be conclusive, our goal here is to stimulate discussion on the ongoing changes in the organisational science communication landscape, and the consequences it may have for practice.

The aim of the podcast Digitization of Medicine is to interest a broader audience and, in particular, young women, in research and work in the field of medical informatics. This article presents the usage figures and discusses their significance for further research on the success of science communication. By 24/02/2022, a total of 24,351 downloads had been made. There were slightly more female than male listeners, and they tended to be younger. Despite the importance podcast are gaining for science communication, little is known about the respective user group and further research is needed. In this context, this paper aims to help make the effectiveness of podcasts comparable.

Scientific knowledge has expanded dramatically in the 21st century. Yet, even in science where there is large consensus among the studies-evolution by natural selection, for example, or the human basis of accelerated climate change-the public and policymakers are not always in agreement with the science. To bridge this gap, scientists and educators need to connect and engage with diverse audiences with varying levels of science literacy. Communication scholars have identified several effective tactics to communicate effectively with non-specialist audiences. However, our sometimes-siloed thinking in science and higher education discourages sharing this knowledge across disciplinary lines. Furthermore, many training programs focus on educating about which communication strategies work, but they fail to provide participants with the opportunity to develop the skills required to listen effectively and respond in an engaging way. To that end, we created the Science Communication Boot Camp (SCBC) with support from an American Association for Anatomy innovations grant. The 3-day program engaged and immersed participants in training designed to develop audience-centered communication, distill scientific concepts into meaningful narratives, and connect effectively with the public, collaborators, and policymakers. Based on participant surveys at three timepoints (preworkshop, postworkshop, and 2-year follow-up), the SCBC was effective in helping participants to increase their communication skills and willingness to engage with the public and other non-specialist audiences., (© 2022 The Authors. The Anatomical Record published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Association for Anatomy.)

CRISPR technologies are advancing at a dizzying pace, and emerging cultural, sociopolitical, ethical, and legal implications continue to pose new challenges for public engagement. Recent calls for public engagement and dialogue on CRISPR applications stress the importance of nuanced thinking and responsible communication. In this chapter, we review public opinion research and find that a comprehensive and clear picture of global views on CRISPR is missing but is necessary to build the foundation for effective public engagement programs. We recommend community-based-participatory research as an inclusive and effective framework for shared knowledge production and decision-making practices for scientific experts and science communicators to engage in genuine and meaningful dialogue with community members in making informed consideration for important value-laden decisions. In response to the politicization of science, this chapter offers strategic communication techniques that can help those facilitating public engagement of CRISPR-based technologies keep cognitive biases, such as identity protective cognition, motivated reasoning, and confirmation bias, at bay., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

The field of psychology has a long history of encouraging researchers to disseminate their findings to the broader public. This trend has continued in recent decades in part because of professional psychology organizations reissuing calls to "give psychology away." This recent wave of calls to give psychology away is different because it has been occurring alongside another movement in the field-the credibility revolution in which psychology has been reckoning with metascientific questions about what exactly psychologists know. This creates a dilemma for the modern psychologist: How is one to "give psychology away" if one is unsure about what is known or what one has to give? In the current article, we discuss strategies for navigating this tension by drawing on insights from the interdisciplinary fields of science communication and persuasion and social influence.

This study examines the effects of exposure to media narratives about science on perceptions pertaining to the reliability of science, including trust, beliefs, and support for science. In an experiment ( n  = 4497), participants were randomly assigned to read stories representing ecologically valid media narratives: the honorable quest, counterfeit quest, crisis or broken, and problem explored. Exposure to stories highlighting problems reduced trust in scientists and induced negative beliefs about scientists, with more extensive effects among those exposed to the "crisis/broken" accounts and fewer for those exposed to "counterfeit" and "problem explored" stories. In the "crisis/broken" and "problem explored" conditions, we identified a three-way interaction in which those with higher trust who considered the problem-focused stories to be representative of science were more likely to believe science is self-correcting and those with lower trust who perceived the stories to be representative were less likely to report that belief. Support for funding science was not affected by the stories. This study demonstrates the detrimental consequences of media failure to accurately communicate the scientific process, and provides evidence for ways for scientists and journalists to improve science communication, while acknowledging the need for changes in structural incentives to obtain such a goal.

Some people hold beliefs that are opposed to overwhelming scientific evidence. Such misperceptions can be harmful to both personal and societal well-being. Communicating scientific consensus has been found to be effective in eliciting scientifically accurate beliefs, but it is unclear whether it is also effective in correcting false beliefs. Here, we show that a strategy that boosts people's understanding of and ability to identify scientific consensus can help to correct misperceptions. In three experiments with more than 1,500 U.S. adults who held false beliefs, participants first learned the value of scientific consensus and how to identify it. Subsequently, they read a news article with information about a scientific consensus opposing their beliefs. We found strong evidence that in the domain of genetically engineered food, this two-step communication strategy was more successful in correcting misperceptions than merely communicating scientific consensus. The data suggest that the current approach may not work for misperceptions about climate change.

AbstractClimate change is one of the most urgent issues facing society today, and scientists have an important opportunity to teach students and other audiences about climate change. With climate communication, it can be tempting to think that the primary goal should be to get more people to accept climate change, but true climate literacy requires not just an understanding of the reality of climate change but also acting on that understanding. Here, I argue that there is an important role for communicating about climate change with people who already accept that it is occurring. Such communication can help people improve their understanding, increasing their certainty regarding climate change and its drivers, and spur them to take action. Social science research has important insights regarding how to communicate in a way that encourages people to change behaviors, including aiming to increase personal and collective efficacy and helping people figure out how to meet key needs while reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Climate change communicators should seek out audiences that already accept climate change, helping those individuals deepen their understanding and energizing and empowering these people to act.

Research in the sciences of new-media arts aims to develop original research questions and borrows many different interdisciplinary research methodologies that often involve collaboration with professionals from non-art fields to provide real investigations. Over the last four decades, new-media arts provided unlimited strategies to integrate the laypeople into real interactive conversations allowing them to express their opinions and reflect their concerns regarding boundless scientific, environmental, political and ethical issues. Within this context, this article illustrates the parallel and growing attention to perform effective joint public engagement projects between both new-media arts and biological science domains and how biological science could benefit from the new-media arts projects to allow the laypeople to actively participate in decision-making processes regarding critical biological issues that seek more open and democratic biological investigations. This article, therefore, monitors the developments of public engagement as a concept in biological sciences and its practical principles, which they have been enhanced under the influence of today's new-media arts strategies of engagement. As an extension of the existed efforts, the article, finally, highlighted one of the most recent international conversation led by the author regarding an assumed new-media arts protocol to use stem cells in new-media arts labs and the role of such protocol to secure the highest standard level of public engagement, by which the laypeople could control and reshape the future of generative biology and personalised medicine., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

To curtail the rising tide of antiscience threatening the health and progress of society, scientists are increasingly engaging with the public. Here, we describe our approach to write accessible books based on personal stories as a means to help spread scientific literacy to those who normally do not read science., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Many of the world's most pressing issues, such as the emergence of zoonotic diseases, can only be addressed through interdisciplinary research. However, the findings of interdisciplinary research are susceptible to miscommunication among both professional and non-professional audiences due to differences in training, language, experience, and understanding. Such miscommunication contributes to the misunderstanding of key concepts or processes and hinders the development of effective research agendas and public policy. These misunderstandings can also provoke unnecessary fear in the public and have devastating effects for wildlife conservation. For example, inaccurate communication and subsequent misunderstanding of the potential associations between certain bats and zoonoses has led to persecution of diverse bats worldwide and even government calls to cull them. Here, we identify four types of miscommunication driven by the use of terminology regarding bats and the emergence of zoonotic diseases that we have categorized based on their root causes: (1) incorrect or overly broad use of terms; (2) terms that have unstable usage within a discipline, or different usages among disciplines; (3) terms that are used correctly but spark incorrect inferences about biological processes or significance in the audience; (4) incorrect inference drawn from the evidence presented. We illustrate each type of miscommunication with commonly misused or misinterpreted terms, providing a definition, caveats and common misconceptions, and suggest alternatives as appropriate. While we focus on terms specific to bats and disease ecology, we present a more general framework for addressing miscommunication that can be applied to other topics and disciplines to facilitate more effective research, problem-solving, and public policy.

The COVID-19 pandemic and subsequent proliferation of misinformation have created parallel public health crises. Social media offers a novel platform to amplify evidence-based communication to broader audiences. This paper describes the application of science communication engagement on social media platforms by an interdisciplinary team of female scientists in a campaign called Dear Pandemic. Nurses are trusted professionals trained in therapeutic communication and are central to this effort. The Dear Pandemic campaign now has more than 97,000 followers with international and multilingual impact. Public health strategies to combat misinformation and guide individual behavior via social media show promise, and require further investment to support this novel dissemination of science communication., (© 2021 Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

In an age of globalisation and hyperconnectivity, the COVID-19 pandemic has caused unprecedented and sustained impact worldwide. This article discusses issues related to (science) communication at different phases of the COVID-19 epidemic timeline. We consider the role of communication for prevention from the ecological perspective, taking into consideration that many emerging pathogens, including COVID-19, likely arise in part due to anthropogenic changes to natural environments. Communication forms part of the early response setting the scene for public buy-in of public health interventions at the start of an outbreak, as well as to maintain precautions over time. Finally, communication is a key element in increasing acceptance for new tools that require mass uptake to be effective, as seen with roll-out challenges for the COVID-19 vaccines, which faced heightened concerns of efficacy and safety while mired with rampant misinformation. Ultimately, strategies for prevention of viral epidemics such as COVID-19 must include communication strategies at the forefront to reduce the risk of the emergence of new diseases and enhance efforts to control their spread and burden. Despite key themes emerging, what constitutes effective communication strategies for different people and contexts needs to be investigated further.

After chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear or explosive (CBRNE) disasters, trepidation and infodemics about invisible hazards may cause indirect casualties in the affected society. Effective communication regarding technical issues between disaster experts and the residents is key to averting such secondary impacts. However, misconceptions about scientific issues and mistrust in experts frequently occur even with intensive and sincere communications. This miscommunication is usually attributed to residents' conflicts with illiteracy, emotion, value depositions and ideologies. However, considering that communication is an interactive process, there are likely to be additional factors attributable to experts. This article aims to summarize the gaps in rationality between experts and residents observed after the 2011 Fukushima nuclear disaster to describe how residents perceived experts. There were discrepancies in the perception of 'facts', the perception of probability, the interpretation of risk comparison, what were included as risk trade-offs, the view of the disaster, whose behavior would be changed by the communication and whether risk should be considered a science. These findings suggest that there was a non-scientific rationality among residents, which often exercised a potent influence on everyday decision-making. It might not be residents but experts who need to change their behavior. The discrepancies described in this article are likely to apply to communications following any CBRNE disasters that affect people's lives, such as the current COVID-19 pandemic. Therefore, our experiences in Fukushima may provide clues to averting mutual mistrust between experts and achieving better public health outcomes during and after a crisis., (© The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of The Japanese Radiation Research Society and Japanese Society for Radiation Oncology.)

When Australian physicist, Peter Ridd, lost his tenured position with James Cook University, he was called a 'whistleblower', 'contrarian academic' and 'hero of climate science denial'. In this article, we examine the events surrounding his dismissal to better understand the role of science communication in organised climate change scepticism. We discuss the sophistry of his complaint to locate where and through what processes science communication becomes political communication. We argue that the prominence of scientists and scientific knowledge in debates about climate change locates science, as a social sphere or fifth pillar in Hutchins and Lester's theory of mediatised environmental conflict. In doing so, we provide a model to better understand how science communication can be deployed during politicised debates.

Photographs are widely used to visualise science. However, the influence of visual quality of photographs on the effectiveness of science communication is often disregarded and seldom tested. This study examines how the visual quality of photographs affects science communication on interpretive signage within Xixi National Wetland Park, China. Results show that a high-quality photograph on the signage significantly increased the following affective and cognitive aspects of communication: (1) a visitor's intention to read the signage, (2) enjoyment of reading the interpretive information, (3) understanding and (4) recall of the information on the signage. This study offers empirical evidence for the benefits of using high-quality photographs to visualise science. To improve the effectiveness of science communication in interpretive products, we argue that the quality of the selected photographs should be considered seriously.

The spread of science misinformation harms efforts to mitigate threats like climate change or coronavirus. Construal-level theory suggests that mediated messages can prime psychological proximity to threats, having consequences for behavior. Via two MTurk experiments, I tested a serial mediation process model predicting misinformation sharing from lexical concreteness, through psychological proximity and perceived threat. In Study 1, concrete misinformation primed psychological proximity which, in turn, increased perceived threat. Perceived threat then increased the likelihood that misinformation would be shared. Source credibility was also shown to positively influence misinformation sharing. Study 2 advanced this by showing this process was moderated by subjective knowledge. Specifically, the effect of perceived threat on misinformation sharing was stronger for those with higher subjective knowledge. Furthermore, the indirect effect of lexical concreteness on misinformation sharing was stronger for those with higher subjective knowledge. Results and limitations are discussed within the lens of construal-level theory and science communication.

Awe is a frequently represented and commonly experienced emotion in science communication. According to a popular account of this emotion, awe is an innate and universal human affective experience that occurs when a person evaluates a target as vast, forcing a shift in their worldview. This shift is portrayed in science communication as resulting in an enhanced interest in the scientific material at hand. Based on the latest research in affective science, however, we challenge this narrow version of awe in science communication and instead advocate a broader account of this emotion in line with a constructionist perspective. We argue that there are a variety of awe types in science communication, each with different forms and functions in relation to the mandates within the multiplicity of contexts in this cultural space. We also contend that people's awe experiences result from their previous interactions with this emotion and the unique affordances provided by the science communication situation.

Uncertainty is inherent to science and science communication. However, the evidence appears mixed regarding whether portraying uncertainty in science communication has positive or negative effects. We review a diverse range of experimental literature ( k  = 48; from 40 searches and 8000 retrievals), summarize the extant findings, and observe how the effects vary across four different types of communicated uncertainty ( deficient, technical, scientific , and consensus uncertainty ). The results indicate that most findings of negative effects (such as reduced credibility and beliefs) are from experiments that operationalized uncertainty as disagreement or conflict in science ( consensus uncertainty ). In this review, consensus uncertainty was never found to have positive effects. In contrast, uncertainty in the form of quantified error ranges and probabilities ( technical uncertainty ) in these studies has had only positive or null effects, not negative effects. We also highlight frequent moderators of the effects of uncertainty, such as prior beliefs and worldviews.

Public Understanding of Science is an interdisciplinary journal serving the scholarly community and practitioners. This article reports an analysis of the readability and jargon in articles published in Public Understanding of Science throughout its almost three decades of existence to examine trends in accessibility to diverse audiences. The accessibility of Public Understanding of Science articles published in 1999/2000 (47), 2009 (49) and 2019 (65) was assessed in terms of readability and use of jargon. Readability decreased and use of jargon increased between 1999 and 2000 and the two following decades for empirical and non-empirical papers, and all parts including the abstracts. An analysis of rare words shows that most are not part of the general academic vocabulary or disciplinary jargon, but rather words that appeared only in one article. Public Understanding of Science has moved away from everyday language. This does not mean it is incomprehensible to its scholarly readership, but may have consequences to other audiences such as practitioners.

Just a fraction of the scientific knowledge produced in laboratories reaches a lay audience. Most of our communication with the public gets lost in translation because of the difficulties that science communication poses to scientists. Among other obstacles, differential exposure to scientific and critical thinking, discrepancies with social narratives, and communication training based in the deficit model add on top of a practice established on avoiding emotionality. In this context, effective communication requires the use of emotions, which are crucial to establishing trust. This commentary provides a rationale for collaboration with graphic design and fine arts to use emotions in science communication and education. It starts by proposing the two-way engagement model as a replacement for the deficit model. Next, it offers a neuroscientific basis for the use of emotions in establishing trust. Finally, it finishes profiling the Convergence Initiative's efforts to establish bridges across disciplines and communicating science with the public through art., (Copyright © 2020 Zaelzer.)

Hype, or simplified and sensationalised science, appears to be inescapable in science communication with examples extending from viral social media accounts and 'breakthrough'-themed press releases, to the mediated claims of the celebrity scientist. In science communication, the negative effects of hype are familiar. The question is whether hype is always a distortion and a lie, or can it be redeemed? This essay reviews the contribution of hype to science, specifically in terms of encouraging reflexivity for science and technology. I present three perspectives on hype and invite further conversation on the role of hype in science communication.

Objectives: In this brief communication we discuss issues concerning scientific rigour in palaeopathological publications, particularly studies published in clinical or general science journals, that employ skeletal analysis to elucidate the lives and deaths of historical figures or interpret "mysterious" assemblages or burials. We highlight the relationship between poor methodological rigour and lack of interdisciplinary communication, and discuss how this can result in scientifically weak, sensational narratives being presented to the public., Conclusions: Although most high profile publications involving analysis of archaeological human remains are methodologically sound and well interpreted, others have suffered from poor scientific rigour stemming from an apparent lack of awareness of anthropological methods and ethics. When these publications are highlighted by the press, sensationalistic narratives are perpetuated which may reflect poorly on our discipline and give the public unrealistic expectations about our work., Suggestions for Future Research: We suggest that best practice in high-profile paleopathological research include recruitment of a range of authors and reviewers from clinical sciences, anthropology, and the humanities, consideration of the ethical issues surrounding retrospective diagnosis, and transparency with the press in regards to the limitations inherent in this kind of work., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Active communication between researchers and society is necessary for the scientific community's involvement in developing science-based policies. This need is recognized by governmental and funding agencies that compel scientists to increase their public engagement and disseminate research findings in an accessible fashion. Storytelling techniques can help convey science by engaging people's imagination and emotions. Yet, many researchers are uncertain about how to approach scientific storytelling, or feel they lack the tools to undertake it. Here we explore some of the techniques intrinsic to crafting scientific narratives, as well as the reasons why scientific storytelling may be an optimal way of communicating research to nonspecialists. We also point out current communication gaps between science and society, particularly in the context of neurodiverse audiences and those that include neurological and psychiatric patients. Present shortcomings may turn into areas of synergy with the potential to link neuroscience education, research, and advocacy., (Copyright © 2019 the authors.)

This article investigates how activists use science communication to protest the regulation and use of Traditional Chinese Medicine in China. The article reports on a participant observation study of the motivations of the activists as well as the form and content of their activities. The article hereby questions the apparently close links between the systems of state and science in China. It also points to different configurations of the relationship between scientists, activists, science communication and publics than what has been common in analyses of science communication and activism in Western countries.

The podcast project Evidenz-Geschichte(n) uses storytelling as a method to communicate principles and methods of evidence-based medicine in an attractive way. Both podcasts and storytelling have become quite popular for science communication in general. However, they bring both chances and risks that need to be considered thoroughly. Ideally, communication concepts using storytelling and/or podcasts should be evaluated in their specific contexts., (Copyright © 2019. Published by Elsevier GmbH.)

Social science has distinct advantages and challenges when it comes to communicating its findings to the public. Its topics are often highly accessible to the general public, yet its findings may be counterintuitive and politically contentious. Conveying recent changes in the organization of the American economy provides an illustration of the difficulties and opportunities for engaging the public. The declining number of public corporations in the United States is associated with a shrinking middle class, lower opportunities for upward mobility, and a fraying social safety net, with important implications for individuals and public policy. Attempting to convey this set of findings to a broad public has demonstrated that some strategies and communication channels work better than others, and that some online media are particularly effective., Competing Interests: The author declares no conflict of interest.

In November of 2017, an interdisciplinary panel discussed the complexities of gene drive applications as part of the third Sackler Colloquium on "The Science of Science Communication." The panel brought together a social scientist, life scientist, and journalist to discuss the issue from each of their unique perspectives. This paper builds on the ideas and conversations from the session to provide a more nuanced discussion about the context surrounding responsible communication and decision-making for cases of post-normal science. Deciding to use gene drives to control and suppress pests will involve more than a technical assessment of the risks involved, and responsible decision-making regarding their use will require concerted efforts from multiple actors. We provide a review of gene drives and their potential applications, as well as the role of journalists in communicating the extent of uncertainties around specific projects. We also discuss the roles of public opinion and online environments in public engagement with scientific processes. We conclude with specific recommendations about how to address current challenges and foster more effective communication and decision-making for complex, post-normal issues, such as gene drives., Competing Interests: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Effective science communication requires assembling scientists with knowledge relevant to decision makers, translating that knowledge into useful terms, establishing trusted two-way communication channels, evaluating the process, and refining it as needed. Communicating Science Effectively: A Research Agenda [National Research Council (2017)] surveys the scientific foundations for accomplishing these tasks, the research agenda for improving them, and the essential collaborative relations with decision makers and communication professionals. Recognizing the complexity of the science, the decisions, and the communication processes, the report calls for a systems approach. This perspective offers an approach to creating such systems by adapting scientific methods to the practical constraints of science communication. It considers staffing (are the right people involved?), internal collaboration (are they talking to one another?), and external collaboration (are they talking to other stakeholders?). It focuses on contexts where the goal of science communication is helping people to make autonomous choices rather than promoting specific behaviors (e.g., voter turnout, vaccination rates, energy consumption). The approach is illustrated with research in two domains: decisions about preventing sexual assault and responding to pandemic disease., Competing Interests: The author declares no conflict of interest.