Public Understanding of Science最新文献

A latent class analysis on a nationally representative Australian sample (N = 1000) identified four subgroups (i.e. classes), ranging from high to low concern about, and willingness to donate to, a national genomic repository under different forms of public and commercial management and access. The distribution of concerns and governance preferences across these classes was investigated. This added to previous research by indicating the degree to which extant concerns (e.g. corporate profiteering, discrimination by insurers) are held by different segments of the community. Based on the governance mechanisms that had widespread support across segments, the following recommendations are made to develop a trusted Australian genomic repository: the repository cannot be solely profit-driven; can utilise an access committee; protections (e.g. ensuring confidentiality of donors) may not require new legislation; data users cannot retain data for future research; the public should remain informed about the intended and/or actual benefits of research.

The development of techniques for the modification of the human genome gives rise to heterogeneous communications and representations and is a relevant object for studying the dissemination of scientific innovations within society. Situated within the framework of social representations theory, our study aims to investigate the thematic dimensions of the public debate-as occurring in the French press-on the edition of human embryos. We conducted a lexicometric study of 343 French press articles with a hierarchical descending classification analysis and a correspondence analysis. Results indicate an evolution in the media treatment of human genome editing, from a popularization perspective to a focus on ethical and legislative aspects of genome editing. This study attempts to shed light on the structure and dynamics of information and meanings associated with human genome editing by analyzing the context in which communications surrounding genetic editing are situated and produced.

Retracted COVID-19 articles have circulated widely on social media. Although retractions are intended to correct the scientific record, when trust in science is low, they may instead be interpreted as evidence of censorship or simply ignored. We performed a content analysis of tweets about the two most widely shared retracted COVID-19 articles, Mehra20 and Rose21, before and after their retractions. When Mehra20 was seen as a politicized attack on Donald Trump and hydroxychloroquine, its retraction was broadly shared as proof that the article had been published for political reasons. However, when Rose21 was seen as evidence of vaccine harm by vaccine opponents, its retraction was either ignored or else framed as a conspiracy to censor the truth. These results demonstrate how retractions can be selectively used by scientific counterpublics to reframe the regulation of science as evidence of its institutional corruption.

The motivated reception of science in line with one's preexisting convictions is a well-documented, pervasive phenomenon. In two studies (N = 743), we investigated whether this bias might be stronger in some people than others due to dispositional differences. Building on the assumptions that motivated science reception is driven by perceived threat and suspicion and higher under perceived ambiguity and uncertainty, we focused on traits associated with such perceptions. In particular, we tested the impact of conspiracy mentality and victim sensitivity on motivated science reception (as indicated by ascriptions of researchers' trustworthiness and evidence credibility). In addition, we explored the role of broader personality traits (generalized mistrust and ambiguity intolerance) in this context. None of the investigated dispositions modulated the motivated science reception effect. This demonstrates once again, that motivated science reception is a ubiquitous challenge for the effective dissemination of science and everyone seems to be at risk of it.

This research explored the strategic beliefs that people have about science and the extent to which it can explain moral and immoral behaviors. Although people do not believe that science is able to explain certain aspects of their mind, they might nevertheless accept a scientific explanation for their immoral behaviors if that explanation is exculpatory. In a first study, participants reflected on moral and immoral deeds that they performed or that other people performed. Participants were somewhat skeptic that science can account for people's behavior-except for when they reflected on the wrongdoings that they committed. Two further studies suggest that strategic belief in science arises because it enables external attributions for the behavior, outside of the wrongdoers' control. Implications are discussed for science understanding and communication.

News reporting of preprints became commonplace during the COVID-19 pandemic, yet the extent to which the public understands what preprints are is unclear. We sought to fill this gap by conducting a content analysis of 1702 definitions of the term "preprint" that were generated by the US general population and college students. We found that only about one in five people were able to define preprints in ways that align with scholarly conceptualizations of the term, although participants provided a wide array of "other" definitions of preprints that suggest at least a partial understanding of the term. Providing participants with a definition of preprints in a news article helped improve preprint understanding for the student sample, but not for the general population. Our findings shed light on misperceptions that the public has about preprints, underscoring the importance of better education about the nature of preprint research.

On Wikipedia, editors daily negotiate edits to an entry that summarizes climate change to a global audience. The outcome of their efforts is an encyclopedic entry with a conspicuous lack of temporal clarity that circumvents the question of whether climate change is an immediate crisis or merely a potential future phenomenon. This qualitative discourse analysis of editors' debates around climate change on Wikipedia argues that their hesitancy to "declare crisis" is not a conscious editorial choice as much as an outcome of a friction between the folk philosophy of science Wikipedia is built upon, editors' own sense of urgency, and their anticipations about audience uptake of their writing. This friction shapes a group style that fosters temporal ambiguity. Hence, the findings suggest that in the Wikipedia entry on climate change, platform affordances and contestation of expertise foreclose a declaration of climate crisis.

A meta-analysis was conducted to quantify the overall effect of health misinformation exposure on shaping misbelief. Aggregation of results from 28 individual randomized controlled trial studies (n = 8752) reveals a positive but small average effect, d = 0.28. Moderation analyses suggest that adults who are younger and female tend to develop higher misbelief if exposed to health misinformation. Furthermore, media platform, message falsity, and misbelief measurements also contribute to the exposure effect. These findings offer nuanced but crucial insights into existing misinformation literature, and development of more effective strategies to mitigate the adverse impacts of health misinformation.