Pub Date : 2023-01-23DOI: 10.1080/03080188.2022.2156149
J. Steere-Williams
ABSTRACT The germ theory of infectious disease, which developed in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, is often considered a pivotal breakthrough in modern science, medicine, biology, and public health. The germ theory provided a new way to study disease in laboratory, clinical, and community settings, and a new rationale for public health intervention. This article explores two important facets of the germ theory; how the physical techniques and methods of studying germs in laboratories were taught to the first generation of doctors, and how the germ theory was communicated to diverse publics in clinical and community settings. Drawing on the concept of transnational science, I argue that late nineteenth and early twentieth debates around the laboratory practices of bacteriology and the public reception of the germ theory help us to understand the deeper ways that biomedical scientific knowledge is created, constrained, and communicated.
{"title":"Seeing germs, selling germs: translating Anglo-American bacteriology","authors":"J. Steere-Williams","doi":"10.1080/03080188.2022.2156149","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/03080188.2022.2156149","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The germ theory of infectious disease, which developed in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, is often considered a pivotal breakthrough in modern science, medicine, biology, and public health. The germ theory provided a new way to study disease in laboratory, clinical, and community settings, and a new rationale for public health intervention. This article explores two important facets of the germ theory; how the physical techniques and methods of studying germs in laboratories were taught to the first generation of doctors, and how the germ theory was communicated to diverse publics in clinical and community settings. Drawing on the concept of transnational science, I argue that late nineteenth and early twentieth debates around the laboratory practices of bacteriology and the public reception of the germ theory help us to understand the deeper ways that biomedical scientific knowledge is created, constrained, and communicated.","PeriodicalId":50352,"journal":{"name":"Interdisciplinary Science Reviews","volume":"48 1","pages":"181 - 201"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1,"publicationDate":"2023-01-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45762585","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"综合性期刊","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-01-13DOI: 10.1080/03080188.2022.2152244
Kristen Intemann
ABSTRACT There are many ways that trust plays a crucial role in science, both between researchers and between researchers and various communities impacted by their research. Scientific practices can operate in ways that either facilitate, or undermine, trust in science. This contribution will examine the role of science communication in facilitating (or undermining) public trust in science and science-based policy recommendations. This will be done by looking at some potential failures in the public communication of science during the COVID-19 pandemic that have the potential to undermine trust in scientists. Finally, I draw out lessons that this case has for how we might improve science communication practices.
{"title":"Science communication and public trust in science","authors":"Kristen Intemann","doi":"10.1080/03080188.2022.2152244","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/03080188.2022.2152244","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT There are many ways that trust plays a crucial role in science, both between researchers and between researchers and various communities impacted by their research. Scientific practices can operate in ways that either facilitate, or undermine, trust in science. This contribution will examine the role of science communication in facilitating (or undermining) public trust in science and science-based policy recommendations. This will be done by looking at some potential failures in the public communication of science during the COVID-19 pandemic that have the potential to undermine trust in scientists. Finally, I draw out lessons that this case has for how we might improve science communication practices.","PeriodicalId":50352,"journal":{"name":"Interdisciplinary Science Reviews","volume":"48 1","pages":"350 - 365"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1,"publicationDate":"2023-01-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47763710","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"综合性期刊","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-01-05DOI: 10.1080/03080188.2022.2152245
Will Mason-Wilkes
ABSTRACT Specific pieces of science communication shape publics’ more general impression of science, whether intentionally or not. This, in turn, affects how publics interact with science, acts as citizens in techno-scientific societies, and ultimately has implications for the role of science as an institution in democratic societies. Representations of science that downplay scientific uncertainty, elide the role of the scientific community, and de-emphasize the values which define the institution of science have problematic consequences for science, publics and democracy. Therefore, though increasingly encouraged to communicate research to wider public audiences, scientists must think carefully about their communication practices. Specifically, the epistemic status of research findings, what elements of the process of knowledge creation are foregrounded, and the values which underpin the scientific community all need to be clearly communicated to the public. This article will help Early Career Researchers (ECRs) reflect on their public science communication and begin to develop communication practices of benefit to publics and science.
{"title":"Emphasizing uncertainty, celebrating community and valuing values: science communication remedies for the COVID-19 era and beyond","authors":"Will Mason-Wilkes","doi":"10.1080/03080188.2022.2152245","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/03080188.2022.2152245","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Specific pieces of science communication shape publics’ more general impression of science, whether intentionally or not. This, in turn, affects how publics interact with science, acts as citizens in techno-scientific societies, and ultimately has implications for the role of science as an institution in democratic societies. Representations of science that downplay scientific uncertainty, elide the role of the scientific community, and de-emphasize the values which define the institution of science have problematic consequences for science, publics and democracy. Therefore, though increasingly encouraged to communicate research to wider public audiences, scientists must think carefully about their communication practices. Specifically, the epistemic status of research findings, what elements of the process of knowledge creation are foregrounded, and the values which underpin the scientific community all need to be clearly communicated to the public. This article will help Early Career Researchers (ECRs) reflect on their public science communication and begin to develop communication practices of benefit to publics and science.","PeriodicalId":50352,"journal":{"name":"Interdisciplinary Science Reviews","volume":"48 1","pages":"379 - 393"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1,"publicationDate":"2023-01-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49315483","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"综合性期刊","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-01-02DOI: 10.1080/03080188.2022.2081017
S. Tayyebi, Y. Demir
ABSTRACT This study explores correlations between personal preferences for musical instruments and architectural materials. Specifically, it determines whether preferences for 12 musical instruments or their instrument families may reflect a preference tendency in architectural material features pertaining to colour, quality, texture, and reflection. First, a survey gathered individual appreciations of the attributes. After carefully distinguishing the valid responses, Pearson’s correlation coefficient analysis revealed attribute preference correlations within different demographic classes, and Bonferroni correction screened the most reliable ones. The outcomes show different correlation trends across ages and genders, and once again confirm their importance in the preference correlations. Attributes related to material colour and quality reflected a higher number of correlations with musical instrument timber preferences, and thus have more potential to reflect the satisfactory attributes in another field. Several correlations were also discovered, thereby confirming the existence and potential uses of the preference correlations between musical instruments and architectural materials.
{"title":"Musical preferences correlate architectural tastes: preference correlations between architectural material features and musical instruments","authors":"S. Tayyebi, Y. Demir","doi":"10.1080/03080188.2022.2081017","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/03080188.2022.2081017","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This study explores correlations between personal preferences for musical instruments and architectural materials. Specifically, it determines whether preferences for 12 musical instruments or their instrument families may reflect a preference tendency in architectural material features pertaining to colour, quality, texture, and reflection. First, a survey gathered individual appreciations of the attributes. After carefully distinguishing the valid responses, Pearson’s correlation coefficient analysis revealed attribute preference correlations within different demographic classes, and Bonferroni correction screened the most reliable ones. The outcomes show different correlation trends across ages and genders, and once again confirm their importance in the preference correlations. Attributes related to material colour and quality reflected a higher number of correlations with musical instrument timber preferences, and thus have more potential to reflect the satisfactory attributes in another field. Several correlations were also discovered, thereby confirming the existence and potential uses of the preference correlations between musical instruments and architectural materials.","PeriodicalId":50352,"journal":{"name":"Interdisciplinary Science Reviews","volume":"48 1","pages":"129 - 144"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1,"publicationDate":"2023-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47481285","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"综合性期刊","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-01-02DOI: 10.1080/03080188.2022.2158258
A. Blackwell
The following essay is a stylistic experiment for Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, re fl ecting on a personal research agenda and trajectory, in relation to the disciplines that the author has engaged with. Interdisciplinary enquiry often arises from the idiosyncratic experiences and decisions of an individual serendipitously following curiosity, alongside the practical contingencies that shape anybody ’ s career. Such a re fl ection, if spanning multiple disciplines through the perspective of one person, cannot possibly be comprehensive, and will certainly expose the gaps in knowledge and loss of rigour that could have been corrected within a single discipline. The intention in presenting such a personal agenda is not to be de fi nitive, but rather to open up discussion by pulling on the loose threads at the edges of discipline. The primary goal of the experiment is to unsettle established disciplinary perspectives, even where the same questions could have been addressed more authorita-tively in another fi eld. 1
{"title":"The two kinds of artificial intelligence, or how not to confuse objects and subjects","authors":"A. Blackwell","doi":"10.1080/03080188.2022.2158258","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/03080188.2022.2158258","url":null,"abstract":"The following essay is a stylistic experiment for Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, re fl ecting on a personal research agenda and trajectory, in relation to the disciplines that the author has engaged with. Interdisciplinary enquiry often arises from the idiosyncratic experiences and decisions of an individual serendipitously following curiosity, alongside the practical contingencies that shape anybody ’ s career. Such a re fl ection, if spanning multiple disciplines through the perspective of one person, cannot possibly be comprehensive, and will certainly expose the gaps in knowledge and loss of rigour that could have been corrected within a single discipline. The intention in presenting such a personal agenda is not to be de fi nitive, but rather to open up discussion by pulling on the loose threads at the edges of discipline. The primary goal of the experiment is to unsettle established disciplinary perspectives, even where the same questions could have been addressed more authorita-tively in another fi eld. 1","PeriodicalId":50352,"journal":{"name":"Interdisciplinary Science Reviews","volume":"48 1","pages":"5 - 14"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1,"publicationDate":"2023-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42898629","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"综合性期刊","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-12-28DOI: 10.1080/03080188.2022.2152243
Maya J Goldenberg
ABSTRACT It is widely recognized that the public benefits from well-placed trust in science. While expert advice may be wrong at times, nonexperts, on balance, benefit from following scientific experts rather than ignoring them. In short, the public needs science. Numerous professional codes such as the 2017 European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity, scientific reports (e.g., American Association of Arts and Science. 2014. Public Trust in Vaccines: Defining a Research Agenda. https://www.amacad.org/sites/ default/files/publication/downloads/publicTrustVaccines.pdf) and academic scholarship emphasize the importance of public trust in science and recommend a variety of ways to promote it. 1 Less attention, however, is given to the converse relation between science and the public, namely how much science needs the public. This article examines this two-way relationship by considering the role of trust in science, both within scientific communities and between science and the public, where and how public mistrust arises, and what can be done to improve public trust in science.
{"title":"Public trust in science","authors":"Maya J Goldenberg","doi":"10.1080/03080188.2022.2152243","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/03080188.2022.2152243","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT It is widely recognized that the public benefits from well-placed trust in science. While expert advice may be wrong at times, nonexperts, on balance, benefit from following scientific experts rather than ignoring them. In short, the public needs science. Numerous professional codes such as the 2017 European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity, scientific reports (e.g., American Association of Arts and Science. 2014. Public Trust in Vaccines: Defining a Research Agenda. https://www.amacad.org/sites/ default/files/publication/downloads/publicTrustVaccines.pdf) and academic scholarship emphasize the importance of public trust in science and recommend a variety of ways to promote it. 1 Less attention, however, is given to the converse relation between science and the public, namely how much science needs the public. This article examines this two-way relationship by considering the role of trust in science, both within scientific communities and between science and the public, where and how public mistrust arises, and what can be done to improve public trust in science.","PeriodicalId":50352,"journal":{"name":"Interdisciplinary Science Reviews","volume":"48 1","pages":"366 - 378"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1,"publicationDate":"2022-12-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44276747","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"综合性期刊","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-12-28DOI: 10.1080/03080188.2022.2148889
K. Lieberknecht, H. Houser, Adam N. Rabinowitz, S. Pierce, Lourdes Rodríguez, Fernanda Leite, J. Lowell, Jennifer Nelson Gray
In this position paper, we use the example of The University of Texas at Austin’s Planet Texas 2050 (PT2050) to argue that the Grand Challenge (GC) framework for ambitious research initiatives must create meeting grounds for transdisciplinary integration of science, technology, engineering, mathematics (STEM), arts, and humanities, along with community perspectives. We trace the historical trajectory of GCs, and reframe GC initiatives within the literature of interand transdisciplinarity. We present PT2050 as a case study of the infrastructural supports and imaginative process for creating level meeting grounds for transdisciplinarity. We demonstrate the benefits of these meeting grounds through projects, products, and funding generated. We contend that engaging arts, humanities, and community in co-design from the beginning is critical because complex, urgent challenges such as the climate crisis are embedded in human societies and demand solutions based in understanding of social, cultural, and historical contexts as well as STEM applications. ARTICLE HISTORY Received 7 February 2022 Revised 12 November 2022 Accepted 14 November 2022
{"title":"Creating meeting grounds for transdisciplinary climate research: the role of humanities and social sciences in grand challenges","authors":"K. Lieberknecht, H. Houser, Adam N. Rabinowitz, S. Pierce, Lourdes Rodríguez, Fernanda Leite, J. Lowell, Jennifer Nelson Gray","doi":"10.1080/03080188.2022.2148889","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/03080188.2022.2148889","url":null,"abstract":"In this position paper, we use the example of The University of Texas at Austin’s Planet Texas 2050 (PT2050) to argue that the Grand Challenge (GC) framework for ambitious research initiatives must create meeting grounds for transdisciplinary integration of science, technology, engineering, mathematics (STEM), arts, and humanities, along with community perspectives. We trace the historical trajectory of GCs, and reframe GC initiatives within the literature of interand transdisciplinarity. We present PT2050 as a case study of the infrastructural supports and imaginative process for creating level meeting grounds for transdisciplinarity. We demonstrate the benefits of these meeting grounds through projects, products, and funding generated. We contend that engaging arts, humanities, and community in co-design from the beginning is critical because complex, urgent challenges such as the climate crisis are embedded in human societies and demand solutions based in understanding of social, cultural, and historical contexts as well as STEM applications. ARTICLE HISTORY Received 7 February 2022 Revised 12 November 2022 Accepted 14 November 2022","PeriodicalId":50352,"journal":{"name":"Interdisciplinary Science Reviews","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.1,"publicationDate":"2022-12-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"59923904","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"综合性期刊","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-12-23DOI: 10.1080/03080188.2022.2150807
Philippe Stamenkovic
ABSTRACT There are various conceptions of objectivity, a characteristic of the scientific enterprise, the most fundamental being objectivity as faithfulness to facts. A brute fact, which happens independently from us, becomes a scientific fact once we take cognisance of it through the means made available to us by science. Because of the complex, reciprocal relationship between scientific facts and scientific theory, the concept of objectivity as faithfulness to facts does not hold in the strict sense of an aperspectival faithfulness to brute facts. Nevertheless, it holds in the large sense of an underdetermined faithfulness to scientific facts, as long as we keep in mind the complexity of the notion of scientific fact (as theory-laden), and the role of non-factual elements in theory choice (as underdetermined by facts). Science remains our best way to separate our factual beliefs from our other kinds of beliefs.
{"title":"Facts and objectivity in science","authors":"Philippe Stamenkovic","doi":"10.1080/03080188.2022.2150807","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/03080188.2022.2150807","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT There are various conceptions of objectivity, a characteristic of the scientific enterprise, the most fundamental being objectivity as faithfulness to facts. A brute fact, which happens independently from us, becomes a scientific fact once we take cognisance of it through the means made available to us by science. Because of the complex, reciprocal relationship between scientific facts and scientific theory, the concept of objectivity as faithfulness to facts does not hold in the strict sense of an aperspectival faithfulness to brute facts. Nevertheless, it holds in the large sense of an underdetermined faithfulness to scientific facts, as long as we keep in mind the complexity of the notion of scientific fact (as theory-laden), and the role of non-factual elements in theory choice (as underdetermined by facts). Science remains our best way to separate our factual beliefs from our other kinds of beliefs.","PeriodicalId":50352,"journal":{"name":"Interdisciplinary Science Reviews","volume":"48 1","pages":"277 - 298"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1,"publicationDate":"2022-12-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47255861","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"综合性期刊","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：