Public Understanding of Science最新文献

Skepticism about health/vaccination policies during Covid-19 was considered a key example of "science-related populism" mainly based on far-right case studies. However, criticism also spread among various left-wing and environmentalist milieus, which represents an understudied phenomenon. Relying on different strands of scientific literature, and on a qualitative research design aimed both to take account of the political heterogeneity within this critical area and to deepen its links with environmentalism, we aim to highlight the limits and normative implications of its interpretation as solely populism, and to contribute to the elaboration of a different interpretive model. Qualitative and frame-bridging analysis highlighted the consolidation of worldviews in clear opposition to hegemonic values, where the criticism of science finds a more appropriate explanation in a denunciation of the intrusiveness of capitalism in science production, as well as in a rejection of "reductionism" and a claim to self-determination that extend from ecological to health issues.

The ethical dimensions of human-AI (artificial intelligence) interaction demand attention. As artificial intelligence assistants become more anthropomorphized, will the public interact with AI as humans morally? This study applied content analysis to data from an online question-and-answer platform in China (N = 287) to explore the public's judgments of gratitude toward artificial intelligence assistants. The findings revealed the majority supports expressing gratitude, while a significant minority disagrees, indicating diverse ethical judgments. By further analyzing people's reasoning, this study found that supporters attribute gratitude to moral autonomy driven by virtue ethics, moral responsibility for responsible AI, and the perceived source identity of anthropomorphized AI as human, aligning with the Computers-are-Social-Actors paradigm. In contrast, opponents doubt AI's moral agency, highlighting the perceived source of AI as machines, and they judge that treating it with human manners is useless and potentially dangerous. These insights enhance the understanding of the public's view of ethical considerations regarding AI assistants, contribute to gratitude research in the context of human-AI interaction, extend the moral dimension of the Computers-are-Social-Actors paradigm, and emphasize the importance of moral and responsible AI use. Suggestions for future research based on the exploratory findings are also discussed.

This study examined science capital among Finnish adults (N = 1572), who responded to 37 survey items assessing science capital. Factor analysis suggested four science capital dimensions: visiting science-related places, science attitudes, science-related self-efficacy, and early support for studying natural sciences. Higher education and higher parental education were linked to higher science capital across all dimensions. Older participants exhibited lower science-related self-efficacy, less early support, and more negative science attitudes than younger respondents. Age and education were stronger predictors of science-related self-efficacy and early encouragement for men than women, and mothers' education had a weaker effect on science-related self-efficacy for men. The results show that science capital is a multidimensional construct and highlights that younger generations in Finland have had more opportunities to develop their science capital. These findings emphasize the need for early and equitable support to foster positive science attitudes and participation.

Increasingly, more scientists sound the alarm about climate change, sparking debates over the effects of new science communication strategies on scientific credibility. We investigate what happens when climate scientists deviate from science communication that is principally factual and neutral. In an experiment (US sample, N = 882), we investigated if affective expressions and personal stories impact scientists' credibility and public climate engagement. The results suggest that when climate scientists incorporate affect or personal anecdotes into their messaging, it does not significantly diminish their credibility. Nevertheless, message consistency is essential; only by aligning the narrative with expressed affect can scientific credibility and climate engagement be increased.

The discourse on scientists' involvement in climate advocacy has intensified, with a growing number participating in civil disobedience. This trend has sparked criticism within the academic community. We conducted 47 interviews with climate scientists about the fundamental concerns that underpin their arguments. Scientists worry that advocacy may compromise scientific impartiality and invite allegations of biased science and abuse of authority. Despite this, some scientists view informing and warning the public as their duty and as an act of defending science's credibility. Concerns about independence and the role of scientists in society exist at both ends of the debate, underscoring the challenging landscape scientists currently navigate. While this article does not comment on the acceptability of advocacy, we propose that scientists engage in discussions about their duties and delineate the types of values deemed acceptable for incorporation in science communication about climate change.

This research explored the strategic beliefs that people have about science and the extent to which it can explain moral and immoral behaviors. Although people do not believe that science is able to explain certain aspects of their mind, they might nevertheless accept a scientific explanation for their immoral behaviors if that explanation is exculpatory. In a first study, participants reflected on moral and immoral deeds that they performed or that other people performed. Participants were somewhat skeptic that science can account for people's behavior-except for when they reflected on the wrongdoings that they committed. Two further studies suggest that strategic belief in science arises because it enables external attributions for the behavior, outside of the wrongdoers' control. Implications are discussed for science understanding and communication.

The motivated reception of science in line with one's preexisting convictions is a well-documented, pervasive phenomenon. In two studies (N = 743), we investigated whether this bias might be stronger in some people than others due to dispositional differences. Building on the assumptions that motivated science reception is driven by perceived threat and suspicion and higher under perceived ambiguity and uncertainty, we focused on traits associated with such perceptions. In particular, we tested the impact of conspiracy mentality and victim sensitivity on motivated science reception (as indicated by ascriptions of researchers' trustworthiness and evidence credibility). In addition, we explored the role of broader personality traits (generalized mistrust and ambiguity intolerance) in this context. None of the investigated dispositions modulated the motivated science reception effect. This demonstrates once again, that motivated science reception is a ubiquitous challenge for the effective dissemination of science and everyone seems to be at risk of it.

News reporting of preprints became commonplace during the COVID-19 pandemic, yet the extent to which the public understands what preprints are is unclear. We sought to fill this gap by conducting a content analysis of 1702 definitions of the term "preprint" that were generated by the US general population and college students. We found that only about one in five people were able to define preprints in ways that align with scholarly conceptualizations of the term, although participants provided a wide array of "other" definitions of preprints that suggest at least a partial understanding of the term. Providing participants with a definition of preprints in a news article helped improve preprint understanding for the student sample, but not for the general population. Our findings shed light on misperceptions that the public has about preprints, underscoring the importance of better education about the nature of preprint research.

On Wikipedia, editors daily negotiate edits to an entry that summarizes climate change to a global audience. The outcome of their efforts is an encyclopedic entry with a conspicuous lack of temporal clarity that circumvents the question of whether climate change is an immediate crisis or merely a potential future phenomenon. This qualitative discourse analysis of editors' debates around climate change on Wikipedia argues that their hesitancy to "declare crisis" is not a conscious editorial choice as much as an outcome of a friction between the folk philosophy of science Wikipedia is built upon, editors' own sense of urgency, and their anticipations about audience uptake of their writing. This friction shapes a group style that fosters temporal ambiguity. Hence, the findings suggest that in the Wikipedia entry on climate change, platform affordances and contestation of expertise foreclose a declaration of climate crisis.