Public Understanding of Science最新文献

Understanding motivation and impact of participation in public engagement programs is crucial for fostering dialogue between researchers and the public. Using Self-Determination Theory and Reflexive Thematic Analysis, in this study we analyzed motivation and impact on identity of researchers participating in Bright Club Ireland, a public engagement project where academic researchers learn to use stand-up comedy as an informal and accessible means of communicating their research, then perform at a public-facing variety night alongside professional comedians. Through semi-structured interviews and focus groups, we found that participation in Bright Club is largely intrinsically motivated, driven by researchers' desire to gain skills, be recognized as experts, and present their own perspectives on their disciplines. These findings shed light on how participation in public engagement can promote a sense of autonomy, competence, and relatedness among researchers, and highlight the role of creative expression in facilitating reflection and growth.

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.

This research investigates the moral frames employed by diverse Chinese-speaking "experts" on their Facebook public pages in relation to COVID-19 vaccines, leveraging Moral Foundations Theory for analysis. The analysis highlights that experts predominantly employ moral frames emphasizing care and authority in communicating COVID-19 vaccines. However, the moral frames of care, loyalty, and fairness are more effective in garnering public support. The research thus identifies a disparity between the moral rhetoric commonly espoused by different expert groups and the rhetoric that substantively influences public engagement. The implications of diverse experts' moral framing in public health crises are also discussed.

Citizens' trust in science increasingly depends on their political leaning. Structural equation models on survey data from 10 European countries (N = 5306) demonstrate that this science polarization can be captured by a model with four levels of generalization. Voters of populist parties distrust the system and elite in general, which indirectly fuels a broad science skepticism. At another level, right-wingers have less trust in science as a whole than left-wingers. After accounting for this general skepticism, left-wingers and right-wingers are, however, similarly prone to contest ideology-incongruent research fields and specific claims. These findings have three implications. First, research on science skepticism should carefully consider all four levels and their interplay. Second, the science polarization between populist and non-populist voters has fundamentally different origins than the effect of left-right ideology. Third, a four-level model can expose ideological symmetries in science rejection that have previously remained largely undetected in observational studies.

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.

This commentary reviews conflicts of interest which science mediators may encounter in their professional activities within the field of public communication of science and technology. The case of the ITER project (International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor) illuminates how political decisions, public affairs, management pressures and scientific misconduct may undermine communication and the course of public scientific research. Although some of these issues specifically stem from the fact that the ITER project supports a 'political technology', they broadly reflect, perhaps in a caricatural mode, pathologies from which most research organisations and public science projects may suffer. Clearly, these problems have implications that go well beyond science communication. Scientific research today is carried out in organisations which have policy-related, strategic and even political objectives. Furthermore, science and technology are today highly competitive fields, inching increasingly closer to business and politics. This situation may encourage managers to act in a way that is far removed from the level of integrity we have come to expect in the scientific world. Therefore, professional integrity - not just scientific integrity - must be explicitly covered by employee contracts, and staff regulations and codes of conduct of scientific organisations and public research projects are needed to protect the integrity of science as a whole.

The concept of 'audience' is central to research and practice in science communication. When asked by a scientist for help communicating their work, who among us has not responded with the time honoured question 'who is your audience?' Yet what we mean when we talk about audience is not always clear: implied and ambiguous, rather than explicit and precise. This article explores this ambiguity, drawing on a systematic review of 1360 science communication research articles and a survey of 45 science communication educators. We report 10 different conceptualisations, in three groups. Being conceptualisations include 'Demographic', 'Knowledge', 'Values' and 'Embodied'; Doing conceptualisations include 'Interaction' and 'Dynamic'. In Qualifiers, we found 'Diverse', 'Potential', 'Plural' and 'General' conceptualisations. These data allow tracking of how we have conceptualised audience over time, an understanding of the groups systematically under-serviced, and a pathway to a richer discussion of this key concept for our field.

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 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.