Public Understanding of Science最新文献

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.

Public discussions of controversial science fields like COVID-19 or climate science increasingly address inner-scientific structures and the norms guiding the scientific system-aspects that are normally discussed within the scientific community. However, not much is known about the endorsement of scientific norms by non-scientists and how those endorsements differ between controversial und uncontroversial science fields. We conducted a cross-sectional national survey in Germany (N = 1007) to capture the public endorsement of scientific norms and explored the role of the science field, political ideology, and science news consumption. Results suggest that the endorsement of scientific norms is significantly higher in controversial fields than in less controversial fields. More left-leaning political ideology is connected to higher levels of norm endorsement; science news consumption is partly associated with lower scientific norm endorsement. We discuss our findings regarding their implications for the public's image and understanding of controversial science fields.

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.

Research in science communication is often grounded in specific issue contexts. Although many strands of science communication scholarship consider general concepts or processes, the selection of issue areas in which to ground science communication research is a common activity for researchers at all levels. Despite this, explicit consideration of issue-case selection practices is less common. In this article, we seek to stimulate greater discussion of issue-case selection practices and their implications for science communication as a field. To do so, we conducted a content analysis of abstracts for papers published in two major science communication journals from the mid-1990s to mid-2021. Drawing on this analysis, as well as relevant discussions of issue-case selection practices across the social sciences, we offer three concrete suggestions for issue selection that we hope stimulate greater consideration of these practices and their implications for the development of science communication as a field.

Drawing from science capital research and applying current practice theory, this study sheds light on people's perceptions of science and science-related practices in their everyday lives. The study develops a practice theoretical approach to examine understandings and engagements embedded in socially shared everyday science-related practices. The analysis of 51 interviews with Finnish people aged 20 to 88 with varied educational and socio-economic backgrounds brings participants' voices into a discussion. The findings suggest that science is understood as a generally valuable all-compassing phenomenon offering a means to explain the world and address complex issues. Participants commonly reported engaging with science in their professional lives, regardless of their educational background or employment status. However, most interviewees implied a lack of confidence to engage in science due to the perceived norms of institutionalised science. This study reveals the need for more critical reflection on the approaches of science-promoting practitioners to advance science engagement.

This qualitative study uses inductive thematic analysis to investigate how journalists and their readers perceive scientists. The data-driven approach was applied to 84 articles (reporting on the contested science issues of climate change, vaccines, or genetically modified organisms (GMOs)) and their associated comment sections. Two dominant groups were observed: the pro-science group (consisting of commentators and journalists) and the contra-science group (nearly exclusively commentators). The identified themes show that both groups represent scientists and their science in a particular and similar way across the three contested science topics. These representations are used to justify both support and opposition (e.g., each group refers to scientists' motives; however, they express this theme differently by either describing scientists' actions as born out of a desire to help or out of arrogance). Understanding how non-experts perceive scientists could help improve science communication, which may be the first step toward decreasing societal polarization over contested science.

Sociotechnical imaginaries of gene editing in food and agriculture reflect and shape culturally particular understandings of what role technology should play in an ideal agrifood future. This study employs a comparative media content analysis to identify sociotechnical imaginaries of agricultural gene editing and the actors who perform them in five countries with contrasting regulatory and cultural contexts: Canada, Japan, New Zealand, the Netherlands, and the United States. We find that news media in these countries reinforce a predominantly positive portrayal of the technology's future, although variations in which imaginaries are most mobilized exist based on the regulatory status of gene editing and unique histories of civil society engagement around biotechnology in each country. We argue that by granting legitimacy to some narratives over others, the media supports gene editing as a desirable and necessary component of future agrifood systems, thereby limiting consideration of broader issues related to the technology's development and application.

In recent years, scholars have theorized that one factor enflaming public divides over science and technology is moralization: an individual's perception that their position on an issue is rooted in fundamental moral right and wrong. In this article, I provide evidence for this proposition across five pre-registered hypotheses about the divisive attributes of moralized attitudes in the context of science and technology. Using public opinion data in the United States on three issues-combating climate change, developing gene editing therapies for humans, and labeling genetically modified food-this study demonstrates that moralized attitudes have the potential to exacerbate resistance to scientific evidence and hostility between those with opposing positions. These findings provide strong proof of concept that studying variation in the degree to which individuals moralize issues is an important future direction for understanding persistent public divides over science and technology.

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.