Kevin C Elliott, Heather B Patisaul, Robert M Sargis, Laura N Vandenberg
{"title":"言之有物:环境健康研究中的反思性科学交流与权衡。","authors":"Kevin C Elliott, Heather B Patisaul, Robert M Sargis, Laura N Vandenberg","doi":"10.1289/EHP14527","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Scientists who communicate societally relevant information face challenging contexts in which misinformation, disinformation, hype, and spin are prevalent. As a result, they often face difficult decisions about how to frame their work in a socially responsible manner.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Drawing from the literature on science communication and framing, we identify tradeoffs that environmental health scientists face when deciding how to communicate their work, and we propose strategies for handling these tradeoffs. We use research on the human health effects of environmental endocrine disruptors as a case study to illustrate these challenges and strategies.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>We examine four major frames (i.e., ways of packaging information that draw attention to facets of an issue or topic) in discussions of the effects of endocrine-disrupting chemicals on sexual and neural development and obesity. We show how these frames can be beneficial (e.g., focusing public attention on environmental health threats and promoting actions to address environmental pollution) while simultaneously having harmful effects (e.g., contributing to stigmatization of particular groups or the promotion of harmful political ideologies).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Researchers who seek to responsibly communicate societally relevant work can employ several strategies to mitigate difficult tradeoffs, including <i>a</i>) striving for sensitivity to the social context and its relationship to their framing choices, <i>b</i>) choosing to avoid some frames, <i>c</i>) employing frames that alleviate ethical tensions, <i>d</i>) fostering education to alleviate harms, <i>e</i>) developing interdisciplinary and community collaborations, and <i>f</i>) working with institutions like scientific societies and journals to develop guidance on responsible communication practices. https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP14527.</p>","PeriodicalId":11862,"journal":{"name":"Environmental Health Perspectives","volume":"132 10","pages":"105001"},"PeriodicalIF":10.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11524408/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Words Matter: Reflective Science Communication and Tradeoffs in Environmental Health Research.\",\"authors\":\"Kevin C Elliott, Heather B Patisaul, Robert M Sargis, Laura N Vandenberg\",\"doi\":\"10.1289/EHP14527\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Scientists who communicate societally relevant information face challenging contexts in which misinformation, disinformation, hype, and spin are prevalent. As a result, they often face difficult decisions about how to frame their work in a socially responsible manner.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Drawing from the literature on science communication and framing, we identify tradeoffs that environmental health scientists face when deciding how to communicate their work, and we propose strategies for handling these tradeoffs. We use research on the human health effects of environmental endocrine disruptors as a case study to illustrate these challenges and strategies.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>We examine four major frames (i.e., ways of packaging information that draw attention to facets of an issue or topic) in discussions of the effects of endocrine-disrupting chemicals on sexual and neural development and obesity. We show how these frames can be beneficial (e.g., focusing public attention on environmental health threats and promoting actions to address environmental pollution) while simultaneously having harmful effects (e.g., contributing to stigmatization of particular groups or the promotion of harmful political ideologies).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Researchers who seek to responsibly communicate societally relevant work can employ several strategies to mitigate difficult tradeoffs, including <i>a</i>) striving for sensitivity to the social context and its relationship to their framing choices, <i>b</i>) choosing to avoid some frames, <i>c</i>) employing frames that alleviate ethical tensions, <i>d</i>) fostering education to alleviate harms, <i>e</i>) developing interdisciplinary and community collaborations, and <i>f</i>) working with institutions like scientific societies and journals to develop guidance on responsible communication practices. https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP14527.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":11862,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Environmental Health Perspectives\",\"volume\":\"132 10\",\"pages\":\"105001\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":10.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11524408/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Environmental Health Perspectives\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"93\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP14527\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"环境科学与生态学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/10/30 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Environmental Health Perspectives","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP14527","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/10/30 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
背景:科学家在传播与社会相关的信息时,面临着错误信息、虚假信息、炒作和虚假信息盛行的挑战。因此,他们常常面临着如何以对社会负责的方式开展工作的艰难抉择:我们借鉴科学传播和框架设计方面的文献,确定了环境健康科学家在决定如何传播其工作时所面临的取舍,并提出了处理这些取舍的策略。我们以环境内分泌干扰素对人类健康影响的研究为案例,来说明这些挑战和策略:在讨论干扰内分泌的化学品对性发育、神经发育和肥胖的影响时,我们研究了四种主要框架(即包装信息的方式,可引起人们对某一问题或主题的关注)。我们展示了这些框架如何在有益(例如,让公众关注环境健康威胁并促进解决环境污染问题的行动)的同时产生有害影响(例如,助长对特定群体的污名化或宣扬有害的政治意识形态):寻求以负责任的方式传播与社会相关的工作的研究人员可以采用几种策略来减轻困难的权衡,包括 a) 努力提高对社会背景及其与他们的框架选择之间关系的敏感性;b) 选择避免某些框架;c) 采用缓解伦理紧张关系的框架;d) 促进教育以减轻危害;e) 发展跨学科和社区合作;f) 与科学协会和期刊等机构合作,制定负责任的传播实践指南。https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP14527。
Words Matter: Reflective Science Communication and Tradeoffs in Environmental Health Research.
Background: Scientists who communicate societally relevant information face challenging contexts in which misinformation, disinformation, hype, and spin are prevalent. As a result, they often face difficult decisions about how to frame their work in a socially responsible manner.
Objectives: Drawing from the literature on science communication and framing, we identify tradeoffs that environmental health scientists face when deciding how to communicate their work, and we propose strategies for handling these tradeoffs. We use research on the human health effects of environmental endocrine disruptors as a case study to illustrate these challenges and strategies.
Discussion: We examine four major frames (i.e., ways of packaging information that draw attention to facets of an issue or topic) in discussions of the effects of endocrine-disrupting chemicals on sexual and neural development and obesity. We show how these frames can be beneficial (e.g., focusing public attention on environmental health threats and promoting actions to address environmental pollution) while simultaneously having harmful effects (e.g., contributing to stigmatization of particular groups or the promotion of harmful political ideologies).
Conclusions: Researchers who seek to responsibly communicate societally relevant work can employ several strategies to mitigate difficult tradeoffs, including a) striving for sensitivity to the social context and its relationship to their framing choices, b) choosing to avoid some frames, c) employing frames that alleviate ethical tensions, d) fostering education to alleviate harms, e) developing interdisciplinary and community collaborations, and f) working with institutions like scientific societies and journals to develop guidance on responsible communication practices. https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP14527.
期刊介绍:
Environmental Health Perspectives (EHP) is a monthly peer-reviewed journal supported by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, part of the National Institutes of Health under the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Its mission is to facilitate discussions on the connections between the environment and human health by publishing top-notch research and news. EHP ranks third in Public, Environmental, and Occupational Health, fourth in Toxicology, and fifth in Environmental Sciences.