Public Understanding of Science最新文献

To discover the means of persuasion available to experts who embrace the responsibility of public communication in times of crisis, this study uses a text/countertext method of rhetorical analysis on U.S. newspaper editorials by scientists writing about COVID-19 policy. Model arguments to opposition audiences on pandemic restrictions and vaccine policy were selected for close reading. We examined how writers in a pro-con debate in a centrist newspaper appealed mainly to like-minded readers, failing to make arguments designed to change the opinions of those who did not already agree with them. The lack of rhetorical sensitivity in these editorials suggests a need for scientists to better utilize existing resources of language and argument when addressing opposition audiences. Exemplary editorials to opposition audiences in right-leaning and left-leaning newspapers were then examined to illustrate more promising strategies of public persuasion in highly partisan times.

Today, the dominant climate change discourses affirm its anthropogenic nature and the urgency for policies. However, minority discourses remain active in the worldwide debate, refining arguments beyond simple denial-as shown regarding formal/official discourses of the United States and European far-right parties. This makes it necessary to examine the public understanding of climate change in everyday, informal minority discourses, looking at how they work for broadening societal space for "quarantining" the transformative potential of climate change meanings/policies. For this, we analyze readers' comments on climate change articles from two Portuguese newspapers, drawing from the frameworks of neutralization techniques and meaning barriers. Findings show that although denial of anthropogenic climate change remains, discursive efforts concentrate on person-stigmatizing depictions of climate change actors, delegitimized as "elites" in populist vocabularies, reflecting a consistent alignment between everyday discourses and those of the United States and European official far-right. We discuss the functions this pattern may have for the growth of climate change minority positions.

The coronavirus pandemic increased the role played by scientific advisers in counselling governments and citizens on issues around public health. This raises questions about how citizens evaluate scientists, and in particular the grounds on which they trust them. Previous studies have identified various factors associated with trust in scientists, although few have systematically explored a range of judgements and their relative effects. This study takes advantage of scientific advisers' heightened public profile during the pandemic to explore how people's trust in scientists is shaped by perceptions of their features and traits, along with evaluations of their behaviour and role within the decision-making process. The study also considers people's trust in politicians, thereby enabling us to identify whether trust in scientists reflects similar or distinctive considerations to trust in partisan actors. Data are derived from specially designed conjoint experiments and surveys of nationally representative samples in Britain and the United States.

In recent decades, members of the general public have become increasingly reliant on findings of scientific studies for decision-making. However, scientific writing usually features a heavy use of technical language, which may pose challenges for people outside of the scientific community. To alleviate this issue, plain language summaries were introduced to provide a brief summary of scientific papers in clear and accessible language. Despite increasing attention paid to the research of plain language summaries, little is known about whether these summaries are readable for the intended audiences. Based on a large corpus sampled from six biomedical and life sciences journals, the present study examined the readability and jargon use of plain language summaries and scientific abstracts on a technical level. It was found that (1) plain language summaries were more readable than scientific abstracts, (2) the reading grade levels of plain language summaries were moderately correlated with that of scientific abstracts, (3) researchers used less jargon in plain language summaries than in scientific abstracts, and (4) the readability of and the jargon use in both plain language summaries and scientific abstracts exceeded the recommended threshold for the general public. The findings were discussed with possible explanations. Implications for academic writing and scientific communication were offered.

Research has shown a great distrust among youths toward political representatives, who they demand should "listen to the science." However, less research has been done on youths' own trust in science. This study explores and explains how youths who are environmentally active in two different environmental youth organizations relate to science in social media, whether they trust science, and how youths' relation to science creates a discursive context in which they may develop their identity. The study uses the approach of discourse analysis to examine social media content published on Facebook by Fridays for Future Sweden and Fältbiologerna (the Swedish Field Biologists). The study shows (i) how subject positions for scientists and youth are created in relation to one another based on different expressions of youths' trust in science and (ii) how environmental youth organizations, by identifying with science, make youths important actors in the discourse on climate change.

Numerous studies have explored internal factors such as cultural values and acquired knowledge accounting for how people engage with science. However, it remains unclear how external factors embedded in science texts relate to audience engagement. A content analysis of 298 text-based popular science news articles and their following 5852 reader comments was conducted in two Israeli audiences, science-minded and general readers, to explore how the accessibility strategies embedded in these articles relate to cognitive, affective, and behavioral engagement. Findings indicated similar patterns of relationship between accessibility strategies and engagement expressions for both audiences; however, the relationships were more pronounced for general readers compared to science-minded readers. Using jargon and a narrative writing style increased the odds of positive emotions in reader comments, whereas addressing socio-scientific issues increased the odds of cognitive expressions. These results may contribute to a fuller understanding of ways to drive meaningful public engagement.

This study delves into the intricate relationships between attention to AI in news media, perceived AI explainability, trust in AI, and public support for autonomous passenger drones. Using structural equation modelling (N = 1,002), we found significant associations between perceived AI explainability and all trust dimensions (i.e., performance, purpose, process). Additionally, we revealed that the public acquired the perception of AI explainability through attention to AI in the news media. Consequently, we found that when the public pondered upon support for autonomous passenger drones, only the trust in performance dimension was relevant. Our findings underscore the importance of ensuring explainability for the public and highlight the pivotal role of news media in shaping public perceptions in emerging AI technologies. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed.

Trust in science is crucial to resolving societal problems. Americans across political ideologies have high levels of trust in science-a stable pattern observed over the past 50 years. Yet, trust in science varies by individual and group characteristics and faces several threats, from political actors, increased political polarization, or global crises. We revisit historical trends of trust in science among Americans by political orientation. We find steadily diverging trends by political views since the 1990s, and a drastically and rapidly opening gap since 2018. Recent unprecedented changes are driven not only by decreases in trust among conservatives but also by increases among liberals. Existing theoretical accounts do not fully explain these patterns. Diverging attitudes toward the institution of science can diminish capacity for collective problem-solving, eroding the shared foundation for decision-making and political discourse.

In economics, as in other domains, male experts are overrepresented in public debates. The underlying reason for this is unclear. A demand-side explanation is that female experts are less frequently asked to give their opinion; a supply-side explanation is that, conditional on being asked, female experts are less willing to give their opinion. Analysing an existing panel of expert economists, all asked for their opinions on a broad range of issues, we find evidence of a supply-side gap: male panel members are more likely to give an opinion, and this is the case in all fields of economics and on both in-field and out-of-field topics.