Genetic Food Futures

The aim of this article is to offer an answer to the question: How can we improve public engagement in the genetically modified organisms debate? It will describe the models of Public Understanding of Science and Public Engagement with Science. Public Understanding of Science dates back to the 1970s and is intended to create a relationship between science and people through education. The UK’s House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology introduced the Public Engagement with Science model in 2000. Public Engagement with Science calls for a dialogue between scientists and society, enabling science to be questioned. These models have been used in the past with controversial issues such as GM organisms, although not always successfully. The article concludes by proposing the Genetically Modified Organism Consortium. This proposal is based on the idea of engaging more voices in the debate, and offers a global, national and local response.

Embracing the future through science communication: the inaugural "Mr. Science" Science Communication Conference in China

The inaugural "Mr. Science" Science Communication Conference was held in Suzhou, China on July 9, 2021. It was the largest Chinese conference on science communication study since the start of the 21st century. More than 260 scholars discussed the spirit and culture of science, science communication during the COVID-19 crisis, the public understanding of science, and the ethical aspects of science communication. The conference aimed to develop a system for researching science communication within China. This review outlines the content of the conference and summarizes the key trends in science communication research in China.

How Do Individuals Think About Knowledge and Knowing?

In everyday encounters with new information, conflicting ideas, and claims made by others, one has to decide who and what to believe. Can one trust what scientists say? What’s the best source of information? These are questions that involve thinking and reasoning about knowledge, or what psychologists call “epistemic cognition.” In Chapter 5, “How Do Individuals Think About Knowledge and Knowing?,” the authors explain how public misunderstanding of scientific claims can often be linked to misconceptions about the scientific enterprise itself. Drawing on their own research and that of others, the authors explain how individuals’ thinking about knowledge influences their science doubt, resistance, and denial. They explain how educators and communicators can enhance public understanding of science by emphasizing how scientific knowledge is created and evaluated and why it should be valued.

What Role Can Science Education Play?

In international tests, the United States lags behind other developed nations in scientific knowledge, consistently scoring in the middle of the pack, motivating calls to strengthen the science curriculum in the United States, as reflected by the current standards movements in education. As educators, the authors make the case in Chapter 3, “What Role Can Science Education Play?,” that while increases in science instruction in K–12 education would be a net gain for increasing public understanding of science, education alone has its limits in addressing the broader problem. They provide examples from their own research and that of others of national trends that show the value of focusing science education on the process of how scientific knowledge is created and vetted. The authors offer suggestions to educators, communicators, and policy makers for supporting public understanding of science.

Should You Be a Public Scientist?

Deciding whether to be a “public scientist”—using the media spotlight to highlight important issues—means deciding whether one is a natural explainer. Also, it must be decided how much time and effort can be committed to such outreach and how it impacts research and other activities. Explaining research does offer satisfactions, in that the researcher is contributing to public understanding of science. One problem is that the coverage of science and technology is small and shrinking. That said, opportunities to reach the public directly through websites and social media are considerable. The role of public scientists and the importance of explaining research in general are becoming ever more critical because failure to bridge the information gulf between researchers and the public will hamper, perhaps tragically, our ability to solve the massive global problems we face—climate change, resource depletion, ecological damage, food security, and disease.

Comparing the structures of storytelling and magic for science communication with an agent-based model

When scientists engage in Public Understanding of Science to communicate their research to lay audiences, a common suggestion is to structure their talk around storytelling. Thus, it is crucial to know the actual effectiveness of storytelling in science communication compared to other structures. For instance, a structure almost unexplored is the one of magic or illusionism. As storytelling, it has been evolving and improving over humanity’s history to become ever more effective, granting magicians a prominent place in the entertainment and art industry. In the present work, we compared various storytelling structures and the structure of magic, through an agent-based computational model. The results open the questioning of story architectures; propose a new way to test ideas in science communication; and show that double-blind control studies are very much needed for further testing the structures of Public Understanding of Science and further developing agent-based models.