Public Understanding of Science最新文献

Citizen science is often celebrated. We interrogate this position through exploration of socio-technoscientific phenomena that mirror citizen science yet are disaligned with its ideals. We term this 'Dark Citizen Science'. We identify five conceptual dimensions of citizen science - purpose, process, perceptibility, power and public effect. Dark citizen science mirrors traditional citizen science in purpose and process but diverges in perceptibility, power and public effect. We compare two Internet-based categorisation processes, Citizen Science project Galaxy Zoo and Dark Citizen Science project Google's reCAPTCHA. We highlight that the reader has, likely unknowingly, provided unpaid technoscientific labour to Google. We apply insights from our analysis of dark citizen science to traditional citizen science. Linking citizen science as practice and normative democratic ideal ignores how some science-citizen configurations actively pit practice against ideal. Further, failure to fully consider the implications of citizen science for science and society allows exploitative elements of citizen science to evade the sociological gaze.

News coverage of the opioid epidemic is a useful site for examining genomic framings of addiction. Qualitative analysis of 139 articles published in the United States from 2015 to 2019 discussing genomics, addiction, and the opioid epidemic found an emphasis on both a postgenomic framing in which genetics operates in relation to social and environmental factors, and a molecularized understanding of addiction which highlighted the role of neurobiology and individual-level genetic risk. Discussions of genetics were often intertwined with calls for a biomedicalized approach that frames addiction as a chronic disease in need of medication, and thus under the purview of medical experts. Finally, while genomic discourses were invoked to reduce stigma, genomics was at times used to describe addicts as biologically distinct from other people, reflecting the possibility that genetics-even in the postgenomic context-can be used to promote a biologically essentialized understanding of people with addiction.

Viewers' responses to Orphan Black (2013-2017), a popular, genetics-themed sci-fi television series, reveal much about public understanding of the ethical challenges associated with genetic science. In this article, we assess how fans of Orphan Black process the bioethical themes that are prominent in the show through an analysis of 182 viewer-created blog posts. Using a mixed methods approach, our findings reveal that Orphan Black's fans distill the essence of the show down to its characters' fight for autonomy. Furthermore, fan blogs reveal two notable pathways through which this bioethical principle is explored: gender and reproduction. Viewers draw striking connections between the moral problems they observe on screen in Orphan Black and those they see in the real world-both today and in a possible future-particularly as those problems affect women. While existing scholarship acknowledges these themes in the show itself, our approach demonstrates science fiction fans' active participation in meaning-making and bioethical reasoning and offers a novel approach to studying fan-generated content for public understanding of science research.

Does consensus messaging about contested science issues influence perceptions of consensus and/or personal beliefs? This question remains open, particularly for topics other than climate change and samples outside the United States. In a Spanish national sample (N = 5087), we use preregistered survey experiments to examine differential efficacy of variations in consensus messaging for vaccines and genetically modified organisms. We find that no variation of consensus messaging influences vaccine beliefs. For genetically modified organisms, about which misperceptions are particularly prevalent in our sample, we find that scientific consensus messaging increases perception of consensus and personal belief that genetically modified organisms are safe, and decreases support for a ban. Increasing degree of consensus did not have consistent effects. Although individual differences (e.g. a conspiratorial worldview) predict these genetically modified organism beliefs, they do not undercut consensus message effects. While we observe relatively modest effect sizes, consensus messaging may be able to improve the accuracy of beliefs about some contentious topics.

This study aims to understand the influence of mirth, anger, and hope, as elicited by messages with different humor types, on support for global warming action, and the potential moderating role of individual climate concern. Although mirth did not significantly vary across the different stimuli, the analysis found that climate concern moderated the influence of hope on support for global warming actions. The implications of these findings, especially for respondents who were least supportive of actions to combat global warming, are discussed.

Drawing on Metzger's dual-processing model of credibility assessment, this study examines how individuals with varying topical knowledge (laypersons vs experts) assess the credibility of information on novel foods. Online focus group discussions reveal that both groups share similar motivations for assessing the credibility of information on novel foods (e.g. personal relevance and concerns about the impact of unverified information on others). However, they differ in the barriers they encounter during the assessment of information credibility. Both groups employ analytical (e.g. evaluating content quality) and intuitive methods (e.g. looking at source credibility) to assess the credibility of novel food-related information. However, they differ in the cues used for credibility assessment. Laypersons tend to rely on superficial heuristics (e.g. social endorsement cues or surface features), whereas experts rely more on content features and scientific knowledge to evaluate information credibility. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed.

We report findings from two open-framed focus groups eliciting informed public opinion about the rapidly developing technology of human genome editing in the context of the US healthcare system. Results reveal that participants take a dim view of the present healthcare system, articulating extensive concerns about the accessibility and affordability of care. They feel that, unless these problems are resolved, they stand little chance of benefiting from any eventual human genome editing treatments. They prioritize improvement in healthcare access well above human genome editing development, and human genome editing regulation and oversight above human genome editing research. These results reveal substantial divergence between public perspectives and expert discourse on human genome editing. The latter attends primarily to the moral permissibility of technical categories of human genome editing research and how to treat human genome editing within existing regulatory and oversight systems rather than broader political-economic and healthcare access concerns. This divergence illustrates the importance of openly framed public engagement around emerging technologies.

This empirical article explores the dynamics of exchange and reciprocity between cohorters, that is, study organizers, and cohortees, that is, study participants. Drawing on literature on bioeconomy and valuation, we analyze cohortees' expectations in return for the "clinical labor" they perform in the pilot phase of a Swiss precision public health study. Based on an ethnography of this cohort and data from seven focus groups with cohortees (n = 37), we identified four positions: (1) the good citizen participant, (2) the critical participant, (3) the concerned participant, and (4) the self-oriented participant. These reveal that cohortees' participation, still framed in altruistic terms, nevertheless engages expectations about reciprocal obligations of the state and science in terms of public health, confirming the deep entanglement of gift-based, financial, and moral economies of participation. The different values emerging from these expectations-robust scientific evidence about environmental exposure and a socially oriented public health-provide rich indications about stake making which might matter for the future of precision public health.

The present study sought to explore the distinct discourse norms and evidentiary practices in discussions of COVID-19 in four subcommunities on Reddit. Qualitative analysis found that communities differed in the degree to which they reinforce and augment Reddit's platform-wide norms for dialog and evidence use. One of the three communities (r/AskTrumpSupporters) differed from the rest by establishing discourse norms for turn-taking between politically opposed users and structuring dialog around authentic questions aimed at understanding alternative points of view. Quantitative analyses revealed that this community significantly differed from the other communities in the proportion of dialogic exchanges and in the use of evidentiary practices (sourcing, source evaluation, and interpretation of evidence). Excerpts of dialog from this community are used to illustrate findings. We conclude with implications for educators interested in preparing youth to critically engage with scientific information they encounter in public discourse.

One of the most prominent correlates of trust in science and scientists is education level, possibly because educated individuals have higher levels of science knowledge and thinking ability, suggesting that trusting science and scientists relies more on reflective thinking abilities. However, it is relatively more reasonable for highly educated individuals to suspect authority figures in highly corrupt countries. We tested this prediction in two nationally representative and probabilistic cross-cultural data sets (Study 1: 142 countries, N = 40,085; Study 2: 47 countries, N = 69,332), and found that the positive association between education and trust in scientists (Study 1) and science (Study 2) was weaker or non-existent in highly corrupt countries. The results did not change after statistically controlling for age, sex, household income, and residence. We suggest future research to be more considerate of the societal context in understanding how education status correlates with trust in science and scientists.