Public Understanding of Science最新文献

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).

Research about science and publics in the COVID-19 pandemic often focuses on public trust and on identifying and correcting public attitudes. Drawing on qualitative interviews with 209 residents in six countries-Austria, Bolivia, Germany, Italy, Mexico, and Portugal-this article uses the concept of performativity to explore how participants understand, and relate to science, in the COVID-19 context. By performativity, we mean the ways by which participants understand themselves as particular sorts of publics through identification with, and differentiation from, various other actors in matters that are perceived as controversies surrounding science: COVID-19 vaccination, media communication of science, and the interactions between governments and scientists. The criteria used to construct the similarities and differences among publics were heterogeneous and fluid, showing how epistemic beliefs about the nature of, and trust in, scientific knowledge are intermingled with social and cultural memberships embedded in specific contexts and across disparate places.

Contemporary scientific and technological endeavours face public and political pressure to adopt open, transparent and democratically accountable practices of public engagement. Prior research has identified different ways that experts 'imagine publics' - as uninformed, as disengaged, as a risk to science, and as co-producers of knowledge - but there has yet to be a systematic exploration of how these views emerge, interact and evolve. This article introduces a typology of imagined publics to analyse how publics are constructed in the field of forest genomics. We find that deficit views of publics have not been replaced by co-production. Instead, deficit and co-productive approaches to publics co-exist and overlap, informing both how publics are characterized and how public perceptions are studied. We outline an agenda for deepening and expanding research on public perceptions of novel technologies. Specifically, we call for more diverse and complex methodological approaches that account for relational dynamics over time.

Despite scientific consensus on climate change, climate denial is still widespread. While much research has characterised climate denial, comparatively fewer studies have systematically examined how to counteract it. This review fills this gap by exploring the research about counteracting climate denial, the effectiveness and the intentions behind intervention. Through a systematic selection and analysis of 65 scientific articles, this review finds multiple intervention forms, including education, message framing and inoculation. The intentions of intervening range from changing understanding of climate science, science advocacy, influencing mitigation attitudes and counteracting vested industry. A number of divergent findings emerge: whether to separate science from policy; the disputed effects of emotions and the longitudinal impacts of interventions. The review offers guiding questions for those interested in counteracting denialism, the answers to which indicate particular strategies: identify the form of climate denial; consider the purpose of intervention and recognise one's relationship to their audiences.

This study examined how uncertainty affects information seeking and avoidance behaviors via information insufficiency in the COVID-19 vaccination context. It also investigated how trust in science, government, and society moderate the effects of information insufficiency. An online experiment with 131 Korean adults showed that uncertainty indirectly affects information seeking intentions via information insufficiency, which is moderated by science trust and governmental trust. It also showed that uncertainty indirectly affects information avoidance intentions via information insufficiency, which is moderated by social trust.

The COVID-19 pandemic was accompanied by an infodemic in which trust in news played an essential role. This article analyzes how this trust can be divided into two components, institutional and non-institutional, which are differentially related to beliefs about COVID-19 and perceptions of receiving misinformation and disinformation. Based on a survey conducted in three European countries (Germany, Spain, and the United Kingdom), the study confirms that higher levels of institutional news trust (the trust dimension correlated more with trust in the news media, government, politicians, national and global health organizations, and scientists) are a good predictor of both better knowledge of COVID-19 myths and misstatements, and lower perceptions of being surrounded by false and misleading information about the virus. The research also highlights the special role of media and political sources in strengthening the institutional dimension of news trust.

This study investigates how scientific knowledge is politicized on Twitter. Identifying discursive modes of online politicization and analyzing how they relate to different online issue publics allows us to weigh in on the scholarly debate about when the politicization of science on social media becomes problematic in a democratic context. This is a complicated question in "knowledge societies" where increasing science-politics confluence means that some degree of politicization is necessary for science-informed policymaking and (online) public debate. We look at how pandemic science was politicized through becoming discursively linked with an already highly politicized science issue on Twitter, namely, climate change. Our mixed-methods analysis demonstrates that some politicizations of science seek to contest science-informed policy while others are better characterized as ideological science rejection. We argue for the advantages of this approach of identifying science rejection over approaches that seek to distinguish information from dis-/misinformation.