Public Understanding of Science最新文献

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.

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.

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.

Political actors pay attention to newspapers because they stimulate them to address a topic, reflect public opinion, provide feedback to their decisions, and help them to generate effective messages. Previous surveys showed that this is true for scientific issues. It follows that the newspaper coverage of scientific issues should appear as politically oriented, as observed regarding climate change. Here, we tested this prediction regarding educational neuroscience. This scientific issue is interesting because it implies no major economic interest and because the relevance of neuroscience regarding teaching in the classroom is still highly controversial. As hypothesized, we observed that the French press appeared strongly polarized: the right-leaning press was mostly favorable to educational neuroscience, whereas critical opinions were mainly found in the social-democrat press. Although the relevance of neuroscience toward teaching was rarely discussed in scientific arguments, political actors often invoked educational neuroscience in the press to legitimate their decision.

The objective of this research was to explore how attitudes to science and scientists may be related to anti-vax positions and whether the psychological trait known as Need for Closure may influence the relationship between any or all of these attitudes. A questionnaire was administered to a sample of 1128 young people aged 18-25 living in Italy during the COVID-19 health crisis. Based on the results of exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses, which allowed the extraction of a three-factor solution (scepticism about science, unrealistic expectations about science and anti-vax postures), we tested our hypotheses by means of a structural equation model. We found that anti-vax positions are strongly correlated with sceptical views of science, while unrealistic expectations about science affect attitudes to vaccination only indirectly. Either way, Need for Closure emerged as a key variable in our model, as it significantly moderates the effect of both factors on anti-vax positions.

The COVID-19 pandemic in the United States is marked by divisions in perceptions of disease severity as well as misperceptions about the virus and vaccine that vary along ideological and political party lines. Perceptual differences may be due to differences in the information about the virus that individuals are exposed to within their own identity-affirming ideological news bubbles. This content analysis of six different national network transcripts highlights differences in coverage of severity, and the prevalence of misinformation and its correction that are consistent with previously established preferred news channels of conservatives/Republicans and liberals/Democrats and their perceptions and misperceptions about the pandemic. Results contribute to the growing body of country-specific COVID-19 media studies that allow for comparisons across nations with different cultures and media systems, as these factors play a pivotal role in national responses and experiences.

Lay readers' trust in scientific texts can be shaped by perceived text easiness and scientificness. The two effects seem vital in a time of rapid science information sharing, yet have so far only been examined separately. A preregistered online study was conducted to assess them jointly, to probe for author and text trustworthiness overlap, and to investigate interindividual influences on the effects. N = 1467 lay readers read four short research summaries, with easiness and scientificness (high vs low) being experimentally varied. A more scientific writing style led to higher perceived author and text trustworthiness. Higher personal justification belief, lower justification by multiple-sources belief, and lower need for cognitive closure attenuated the influence of scientificness on trustworthiness. However, text easiness showed no influence on trustworthiness and no interaction with text scientificness. Implications for future studies and suggestions for enhancing the perceived trustworthiness of research summaries are discussed.

Despite widespread trust in scientists, efforts to curtail their influence suggest some Americans distrust scientists and may even perceive them to be a social threat. Using panel survey data, we examine who holds this viewpoint and potential implications of threat perceptions. Results suggest Republicans and Evangelical identifying individuals perceived more social threat from scientists. News media uses were associated with threat perceptions in divergent ways. Threat perceptions were strongly associated with inaccurate science beliefs, support for excluding scientists from policy-making, and retributive actions toward scientists. Findings highlight the importance of social identity considerations amid concerns about partisan social sorting and politicization of science.