英国公众对烟草业参与科学的信任度--一项实验调查

IF 1.5 Q2 COMMUNICATION Frontiers in Communication Pub Date : 2024-03-28 DOI:10.3389/fcomm.2024.1360277
Tess Legg, Lisa Bero, Stephan Lewandowsky
{"title":"英国公众对烟草业参与科学的信任度--一项实验调查","authors":"Tess Legg, Lisa Bero, Stephan Lewandowsky","doi":"10.3389/fcomm.2024.1360277","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Despite the tobacco industry’s (TI) decades-long history of manipulating science, Philip Morris International (PMI) now frames itself as a benevolent funder of science and, in 2017, launched a new scientific organisation, the Foundation for a Smoke-Free World (FSFW). With concerns mounting that PMI’s actions are echoing historical TI influence on science, we aimed to understand the extent to which the public trusts PMI’s involvement in science, and whether channelling funds through a third-party organisation affects these levels of trust.Through a representative survey of the UK public (n=1580) we investigated trust in direct (PMI), indirect (FSFW), and no (Cancer Research UK) TI involvement in science. Conservative worldview was investigated as a possible predictor of trust. Structural equation modelling was used to explore associations between variables.Although PMI was significantly less trusted than FSFW and Cancer Research UK, the public did not completely distrust it as a scientific source. Trust in FSFW’s involvement in science was higher before participants understood its TI funding. People with conservative worldviews demonstrated greater trust in TI involvement in science.The UK public needs to be better informed that the TI is not a trustworthy scientific source. Since channelling TI research funds through a third party increases the perceived trustworthiness of its science, steps to prevent such relationships are warranted. People with conservative leanings hold concerning views on TI involvement in science, which may be particularly hard to correct.","PeriodicalId":31739,"journal":{"name":"Frontiers in Communication","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The UK public’s trust in tobacco industry involvement in science – an experimental survey\",\"authors\":\"Tess Legg, Lisa Bero, Stephan Lewandowsky\",\"doi\":\"10.3389/fcomm.2024.1360277\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Despite the tobacco industry’s (TI) decades-long history of manipulating science, Philip Morris International (PMI) now frames itself as a benevolent funder of science and, in 2017, launched a new scientific organisation, the Foundation for a Smoke-Free World (FSFW). With concerns mounting that PMI’s actions are echoing historical TI influence on science, we aimed to understand the extent to which the public trusts PMI’s involvement in science, and whether channelling funds through a third-party organisation affects these levels of trust.Through a representative survey of the UK public (n=1580) we investigated trust in direct (PMI), indirect (FSFW), and no (Cancer Research UK) TI involvement in science. Conservative worldview was investigated as a possible predictor of trust. Structural equation modelling was used to explore associations between variables.Although PMI was significantly less trusted than FSFW and Cancer Research UK, the public did not completely distrust it as a scientific source. Trust in FSFW’s involvement in science was higher before participants understood its TI funding. People with conservative worldviews demonstrated greater trust in TI involvement in science.The UK public needs to be better informed that the TI is not a trustworthy scientific source. Since channelling TI research funds through a third party increases the perceived trustworthiness of its science, steps to prevent such relationships are warranted. People with conservative leanings hold concerning views on TI involvement in science, which may be particularly hard to correct.\",\"PeriodicalId\":31739,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Frontiers in Communication\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-03-28\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Frontiers in Communication\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomm.2024.1360277\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"COMMUNICATION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Frontiers in Communication","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomm.2024.1360277","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"COMMUNICATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

尽管烟草行业(TI)操纵科学的历史长达数十年之久,但菲利普莫里斯国际公司(PMI)现在却将自己塑造成一个善意的科学资助者,并于2017年发起成立了一个新的科学组织--无烟世界基金会(FSFW)。由于人们越来越担心PMI的行为与历史上贸易组织对科学的影响如出一辙,我们旨在了解公众对PMI参与科学的信任程度,以及通过第三方组织输送资金是否会影响这些信任程度。通过对英国公众(n=1580)的代表性调查,我们调查了公众对贸易组织直接(PMI)、间接(FSFW)和无(英国癌症研究中心)参与科学的信任程度。保守的世界观可能是预测信任度的一个因素。虽然PMI的信任度明显低于FSFW和英国癌症研究机构,但公众并非完全不信任其作为科学来源。在参与者了解英国癌症研究基金会的资金来源之前,对英国癌症研究基金会参与科学研究的信任度较高。世界观保守的人对科技研究所参与科学研究的信任度更高。英国公众需要更好地了解科技研究所不是一个值得信赖的科学来源。由于通过第三方提供技术研究所的研究资金会增加人们对其科学可信度的看法,因此有必要采取措施防止这种关系。有保守倾向的人对技术研究所参与科学研究持有疑虑,这一点可能特别难以纠正。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
The UK public’s trust in tobacco industry involvement in science – an experimental survey
Despite the tobacco industry’s (TI) decades-long history of manipulating science, Philip Morris International (PMI) now frames itself as a benevolent funder of science and, in 2017, launched a new scientific organisation, the Foundation for a Smoke-Free World (FSFW). With concerns mounting that PMI’s actions are echoing historical TI influence on science, we aimed to understand the extent to which the public trusts PMI’s involvement in science, and whether channelling funds through a third-party organisation affects these levels of trust.Through a representative survey of the UK public (n=1580) we investigated trust in direct (PMI), indirect (FSFW), and no (Cancer Research UK) TI involvement in science. Conservative worldview was investigated as a possible predictor of trust. Structural equation modelling was used to explore associations between variables.Although PMI was significantly less trusted than FSFW and Cancer Research UK, the public did not completely distrust it as a scientific source. Trust in FSFW’s involvement in science was higher before participants understood its TI funding. People with conservative worldviews demonstrated greater trust in TI involvement in science.The UK public needs to be better informed that the TI is not a trustworthy scientific source. Since channelling TI research funds through a third party increases the perceived trustworthiness of its science, steps to prevent such relationships are warranted. People with conservative leanings hold concerning views on TI involvement in science, which may be particularly hard to correct.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.30
自引率
8.30%
发文量
284
审稿时长
14 weeks
期刊最新文献
Use of comics in the promotion of school children’s health: a scoping review Editorial: Rethinking global health and communication Understanding news-related user comments and their effects: a systematic review Short versions of the Basque MacArthur-Bates Communicative Development Inventories (children aged 8–50 months) The figure of the influencer under scrutiny: highly exposed, poorly regulated
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1