scholarly journals Imagining GMOs: The Chinese public's scientific perception in the digital age

2019 ◽  
Vol 2 (4) ◽  
pp. 241-253
Author(s):  
Zijing Xu ◽  
Ye Lu

This exploratory study, which is based on the basic concepts of science communication, conducted in-depth interviews to examine the Chinese public's perceptions of and attitudes towards genetically modified organisms (GMOs). We found that, while scientific knowledge may to some extent be a differentiating factor in attitudes to GMOs, people are subject to significant influence from other information sources. Besides scientific knowledge and scientific literacy, the perception of risks in three dimensions—scientific uncertainty, food safety and conspiracy theories—forms an individual's affective framework for understanding GMOs. The trust framework, which is the regulating mechanism of perception and attitude, plays different roles through institutional trust and interpersonal trust. These tentative conclusions shed new light on how science communication should build the relationship between science and the public in the age of globalization and digitalization.

2016 ◽  
Vol 27 (5) ◽  
pp. 535-549 ◽  
Author(s):  
David R. Johnson ◽  
Elaine Howard Ecklund ◽  
Di Di ◽  
Kirstin R.W. Matthews

Drawing on 48 in-depth interviews conducted with biologists and physicists at universities in the United Kingdom, this study examines scientists’ perceptions of the role celebrity scientists play in socially contentious public debates. We examine Richard Dawkins’ involvement in public debates related to the relationship between science and religion as a case to analyze scientists’ perceptions of the role celebrity scientists play in the public sphere and the implications of celebrity science for the practice of science communication. Findings show that Dawkins’ proponents view the celebrity scientist as a provocateur who asserts the cultural authority of science in the public sphere. Critics, who include both religious and nonreligious scientists, argue that Dawkins misrepresents science and scientists and reject his approach to public engagement. Scientists emphasize promotion of science over the scientist, diplomacy over derision, and dialogue over ideological extremism.


Author(s):  
A. V. Golubev ◽  
◽  

The article examines the origins and development of narratives about historical and present-day contacts with al-ien civilizations (ufology) in the USSR after World War II. The current research literature usually interprets ufology as a form of quasi-religious and mythological thinking, yet my study of the genealogy of Soviet ufology demon-strates that the development of alternative knowledge about the outer space was a by-product of the state-sponsored propaganda of scientific knowledge. This relationship suggests that the common understanding of the public com-munication of science as a mere tool for the transfer of knowledge from experts (scholars) to the public is simplistic and misleading. By bringing together science popularizers and broad audiences in a communication chain, the postWWII Soviet mass scientific literacy campaign required the former to mater new narrative forms to appeal to the latter. The narrativization of science for its public communication means that popular science genres exist in a rhetor-ical and literary context, rather than belonging to the domain of the production and verification of scientific knowledge. This makes stories and their structural elements (plot development, internal conflict, and the hierarchy of characters) a key aspect of science communication. Consequently, a history of ufology in the post-World War II USSR serves as an illustrative case revealing how the epistemological polyphony and diversity emerged in late Sovi-et society


2018 ◽  
Vol 76 (1) ◽  
pp. 43-57
Author(s):  
Antti Laherto ◽  
Frederike Tirre ◽  
Ilka Parchmann ◽  
Lorenz Kampschulte ◽  
Stefan Schwarzer

Some level of understanding of and about nanoscience and nanotechnology (NST) has been suggested as being relevant in up-to-date scientific literacy for all. Research scientists working in these fields are central in current efforts to inform and engage the public in NST. Earlier research has shown that scientists can contribute to authentic science learning, but communication always entails roles that affect the choice of content. This study investigated NST researchers’ views on the nature of their research and their preferences in NST communication. Eight experienced professors working in various fields of NST were interviewed. Semi-structured, in-depth interviews focused on the scientists’ views on 1) the nature of their research, and 2) aspects of NST that should be communicated to the public. Qualitative content analysis of the interviews revealed that the themes the interviewees highlighted when describing their research (interdisciplinarity, size scale, methods, objects, nature of NST in general) were somewhat different from the ones they considered as important for communication to the public (applications and products, risks and benefits, visualizations). The results problematize the simplistic notion that exposure to real scientists would unquestionably enhance the authenticity of science learning. This study gives insight for research and development of science communication, especially scientists’ role and training in it. Keywords: authenticity, nanoscience, nature of science, science communication, scientist interviews.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthew H. Slater ◽  
Joanna K. Huxster ◽  
Emily Scholfield

Despite decades of concerted efforts to communicate to the public on important scientific issues pertaining to the environment and public health, gaps between public acceptance and the scientific consensus on these issues remain stubborn. One strategy for dealing with this shortcoming has been to focus on the existence of the scientific consensus. Recent science communication research has added support to this general idea, though the interpretation of these studies and their generalizability remains a matter of contention. In this paper, we describe results of a large qualitative interview study on different models of scientific consensus and the relationship between such models and trust of science, finding that familiarity with scientific consensus is rarer than might be expected. These results suggest that consensus messaging strategies may not be effective.


2021 ◽  
Vol 6 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eric B. Brennan

Scientific information is a key ingredient needed to tackle global challenges like climate change, but to do this it must be communicated in ways that are accessible to diverse groups, and that go beyond traditional methods (peer-reviewed publications). For decades there have been calls for scientists to improve their communication skills—with each other and the public—but, this problem persists. During this time there have been astonishing changes in the visual communication tools available to scientists. I see video as the next step in this evolution. In this paper I highlight three major changes in the visual communication tools over the past 100 years, and use three memorable items—bamboo, oil and ice cream—and analogies and metaphors to explain why and how Do-it-Yourself (DIY) videos made by scientists, and shared on YouTube, can radically improve science communication and engagement. I also address practical questions for scientists to consider as they learn to make videos, and organize and manage them on YouTube. DIY videos are not a silver bullet that will automatically improve science communication, but they can help scientists to 1) reflect on and improve their communications skills, 2) tell stories about their research with interesting visuals that augment their peer-reviewed papers, 3) efficiently connect with and inspire broad audiences including future scientists, 4) increase scientific literacy, and 5) reduce misinformation. Becoming a scientist videographer or scientist DIY YouTuber can be an enjoyable, creative, worthwhile and fulfilling activity that can enhance many aspects of a scientist’s career.


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.


2021 ◽  
Vol 37 (4) ◽  
pp. 405-426
Author(s):  
Jamilah Jamal ◽  
◽  
Hassan Abu Bakar ◽  

The credibility of public organisation as the source of information often receives negative intuition and misinterpretation from the public at large. Since credibility of public organisation is very much related to public trust, scholars have focused on antecedents of organisational credibility such as leadership constructs to restore trust and confidence among the public. Yet not much research has investigated the role of charismatic leadership communication in building and establishing organisational credibility of the public organisation. The aim of this study is to examine the relationship between charismatic leadership communication and the influence of its three dimensions (task oriented, enthusiasm and empathy) with organisational credibility of public organisation in Malaysia. This study employed a quantitative approach to measure participants' perception on their organisational leadership communication and credibility. A total of 368 public organisation employees which were selected through stratified random sampling participated in the survey. The hypothesis of this study was tested using Pearson correlation to examine the relationship between the constructs, whereas multiple regression was used to examine the variance of each dimension of charismatic leadership communication on organisational credibility. The finding reveals that there is a significant relationship between charismatic leadership communication and public organisation credibility, while task-oriented communication appears to be the most significant dimension influencing the credibility of Malaysia public organisation. The implication of the study suggested that public organisational credibility is influenced by the way the information was delivered by the organisation through its charismatic leaders. Theoretical and practical contributions were advanced in this study. Keywords: Charismatic leadership communication, empathy, enthusiasm, task-related communication, organizational credibility.


Author(s):  
Stephen Zehr

Expressions of scientific uncertainty are normal features of scientific articles and professional presentations. Journal articles typically include research questions at the beginning, probabilistic accounts of findings in the middle, and new research questions at the end. These uncertainty claims are used to construct clear boundaries between uncertain and certain scientific knowledge. Interesting questions emerge, however, when scientific uncertainty is communicated in occasions for public science (e.g., newspaper accounts of science, scientific expertise in political deliberations, science in stakeholder claims directed to the public, and so forth). Scientific uncertainty is especially important in the communication of environmental and health risks where public action is expected despite uncertain knowledge. Public science contexts are made more complex by the presence of multiple actors such as citizen-scientists, journalists, stakeholders, social movement actors, politicians, and so on who perform important functions in the communication and interpretation of scientific information and bring in diverse norms and values. A past assumption among researchers was that scientists would deemphasize or ignore uncertainties in these situations to better match their claims with a public perception of science as an objective, truth-building institution. However, more recent research indicates variability in the likelihood that scientists communicate uncertainties and in the public reception and use of uncertainty claims. Many scientists still believe that scientific uncertainty will be misunderstood by the public and misused by interest groups involved with an issue, while others recognize a need to clearly translate what is known and not known. Much social science analysis of scientific uncertainty in public science views it as a socially constructed phenomenon, where it depends less upon a particular state of scientific research (what scientists are certain and uncertain of) and more upon contextual factors, the actors involved, and the meanings attached to scientific claims. Scientific uncertainty is often emergent in public science, both in the sense that the boundary between what is certain and uncertain can be managed and manipulated by powerful actors and in the sense that as scientific knowledge confronts diverse public norms, values, local knowledges, and interests new areas of uncertainty emerge. Scientific uncertainty may emerge as a consequence of social conflict rather than being its cause. In public science scientific uncertainty can be interpreted as a normal state of affairs and, in the long run, may not be that detrimental to solving societal problems if it opens up new avenues and pathways for thinking about solutions. Of course, the presence of scientific uncertainty can also be used to legitimate inaction.


2017 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 26-50
Author(s):  
Andreas Christiansen ◽  
Karin Jonch-Clausen ◽  
Klemens Kappel

Many instances of new and emerging science and technology are controversial. Although a number of people, including scientific experts, welcome these developments, a considerable skepticism exists among members of the public. The use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) is a case in point. In science policy and in science communication, it is widely assumed that such controversial science and technology require public participation in the policy-making process. We examine this view, which we call the Public Participation Paradigm, using the case of GMOs as an example. We suggest that a prominent reason behind the call for public participation is the belief that such participation is required for democratic legitimacy. We then show that the most prominent accounts of democratic legitimacy do not, in fact, entail that public participation is required in cases of controversial science in general, or in the case of GMOs in particular.


Author(s):  
La Shun L. Carroll

<p>The purpose of this article is to present an evidence-supported curriculum covering the fundamentals of logic, reasoning, and argumentation skills to address the emphasized basic knowledge, skills, and abilities required to be scientifically literate, which will prepare the public to understand and engage with science meaningfully.  An analytic-synthetic approach toward understanding the notion of public is taken using a theoretical biomimetics framework that identifies naturally occurring objects or phenomena that descriptively captures the essence of a construct to facilitate creative problem- solving.  In the present case, the problem being solved is how to reconcile what is meant by public, how it ought to be interpreted, determining the diverse levels of confidence in science that exist, and various understandings of science all with one another.  The results demonstrate there is an inherent denotative-connotative inconsistency in the traditional notion of public that can be explicated through the concept of a fractal allowing for comprehension of the relationship between public confidence in, and understanding of, science.</p>


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document