scholarly journals Correction: How cultural evolution can inform the science of science communication—and vice versa

Author(s):  
Theiss Bendixen

A correction to this paper has been published: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-020-00672-y

Author(s):  
Theiss Bendixen

AbstractCultural evolution research is the study of how cultural traits (e.g., beliefs and behavioral patterns) stabilize, change and diffuse in populations, and why some cultural traits are more “attractive” (i.e., more likely to spread) than others. As such, cultural evolution is highly relevant for the emerging “science of science communication” (SSC) in that it can help organize and guide the study of science communication efforts aimed at spreading scientifically accurate information and inspiring behavioral change. Here, I synthesize insights and theory from cultural evolution with central findings and concepts within the SSC with the aim of highlighting the inherent, but underexplored, consilience between these two fields. I demonstrate how cultural evolution can serve as an unifying framework for the SSC and how, conversely, science communication can serve as a fertile testing ground for applying, exploring, and advancing cultural evolutionary theory in a real-world setting that matters. Lastly, I highlight merits and limitations of previous applications of cultural evolution to science communication and conclude with some particularly outstanding questions that emerge at the intersection between cultural evolution and science communication research.


Author(s):  
Joseph Hilgard ◽  
Nan Li

This synthesis chapter recapitulates the major themes of Part I. The chapter proposes that science communication is challenging because science is complex, because humans interpret evidence in biased ways, and because the science–media landscape is shifting. Consequently, the mere supply of scientific information alone is not likely to guide audiences to science-consistent beliefs. Instead, science communicators must learn to navigate both the cultural implications of their work and the heuristics audiences use when deciding whom to trust. Consideration must be given to scientific knowledge and the audience’s values alike. A science of science communication provides an understanding of these multiple considerations and promotes effective dialogue between scientists and the public.


2019 ◽  
Vol 116 (16) ◽  
pp. 7632-7633 ◽  
Author(s):  
Baruch Fischhoff ◽  
Dietram A. Scheufele

2013 ◽  
Vol 110 (Supplement_3) ◽  
pp. 14031-14032 ◽  
Author(s):  
B. Fischhoff ◽  
D. A. Scheufele

2018 ◽  
Vol 17 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Auste Valinciute

This study analyzes the extent, range and nature of science communication scholarship in Lithuania. The purpose of this study is to explore whether there is a presence of this research field in the Lithuanian academic context and if there exists a body of empirical evidence that can be used to inform practical science communication initiatives. More generally, this study asks: is there a science of science communication in Lithuania? Results indicate the presence of an emerging field of research with fragmented scientific activity. Most papers do not explicitly identify “science communication” as the object of study. Most of the relevant work is focused on audience research, indicating the potential for using the results for evidence-based science communication practice. The science of science communication in Lithuanian, however, has yet considerable room for growth and could benefit from more large-scale, nationally representative, data-driven and methodologically sound research.


2019 ◽  
Vol 116 (16) ◽  
pp. 7692-7697 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dominique Brossard ◽  
Pam Belluck ◽  
Fred Gould ◽  
Christopher D. Wirz

In November of 2017, an interdisciplinary panel discussed the complexities of gene drive applications as part of the third Sackler Colloquium on “The Science of Science Communication.” The panel brought together a social scientist, life scientist, and journalist to discuss the issue from each of their unique perspectives. This paper builds on the ideas and conversations from the session to provide a more nuanced discussion about the context surrounding responsible communication and decision-making for cases of post-normal science. Deciding to use gene drives to control and suppress pests will involve more than a technical assessment of the risks involved, and responsible decision-making regarding their use will require concerted efforts from multiple actors. We provide a review of gene drives and their potential applications, as well as the role of journalists in communicating the extent of uncertainties around specific projects. We also discuss the roles of public opinion and online environments in public engagement with scientific processes. We conclude with specific recommendations about how to address current challenges and foster more effective communication and decision-making for complex, post-normal issues, such as gene drives.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document