Scientific Institutions Should Support Inclusive Engagement: Reflections on the AAAS Center for Public Engagement Approach

Scientists’ engagement with society on critical environmental and health issues is essential to reaching positive and equitable long-term outcomes. We argue that stronger institutional support for public engagement is necessary and that inclusive practices should be built into public engagement training and relationships. The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)’s Center for Public Engagement with Science and Technology provides a model of support for scientists that we believe other scientific institutions can replicate and expand on. This model prioritizes representative and accessible science communication training, resources (e.g., funding and staff and peer support), opportunities to practice engagement, and rewards and incentives for doing engagement. We describe our programs in each of these areas and reflect on how well each builds scientists’ engagement skills and institutional capacity, and whether each embodies and models thoughtful, accessible, and representative engagement. Through these various approaches, the Center communicates to other scientific institutions that engagement by scientists should be valued, celebrated, and supported, and builds capacity for individual scientists to do effective engagement. We argue that these supports can be applied by other scientific institutions to reflect and incorporate society’s diverse needs and concerns, thus truly serving the public and making science and scientific institutions stronger for it.

Is Science Effectively Conveyed to the Public? A Case Study of Genetically Modified Mosquito Release

Science is the driving force behind the advancement of society making public engagement with science vital. With the rapid pace of scientific discoveries, the availability of well-balanced scientific information is possibly the most important it has ever been. This study aims to determine the effectiveness with which scientific information is disseminated to the public. This was done by conducting a survey in which people were given three articles to read about the release of genetically modified mosquitoes. These three articles were adapted from local news coverage, government authorities, and peer-reviewed scientific literature. Survey participants were queried on their relative preferences for these articles. Additionally, the top 100 hits on Google for the search item “Florida mosquito release” were analyzed to assess the availability of the scientific information preferred by survey respondents. The results of this study showed that the public seeks quality, balanced scientific literature but that these types of articles aren’t easily accessible. Articles that prioritize getting clicks are more prevalent than those that present balanced scientific research.

Exploration of social cues in technology-mediated science communication: a multidiscipline analysis on ‘Ask Me Anything (AMA)’ sessions in Reddit r/science

Social cues are used to facilitate online science communication, yet little is known about how they may play a role in online public engagement with science sites. This mixed-method study investigates r/science Ask Me Anything (AMA) sessions on Reddit through content analysis and an online survey to identify the types and variations of social cues manifested in six r/science AMAs across varying disciplines. The study's contributions are twofold. One is to investigate social cue uses in online science communication; the other is to develop a coding scheme for social cues that incorporates both positive and negative social cues in the analysis.

Boundary spanners and thinking partners: adapting and expanding the research-practice partnership literature for public engagement with science (PES)

This paper is the culmination of several meaning-making activities between an external researcher, PES practitioners, and social scientist researchers who considered the unique contributions that can be made through RPPs on PES (that is, research-practice partnerships on public engagement with science). Based on the experiences from three RPP projects, the group noted that the PES context may be particularly suited to RPPs, and identified the importance of working as thinking-partners who support reciprocal decision-making. Recommendations are made in support of using these approaches to advance practical knowledge-building and reduce shared frustrations about the disconnect between research and practice in PES.

Going rogue: what scientists can learn about Twitter communication from “alt” government accounts

The inauguration of President Trump in the United States led to the active restriction of science communication from federal agencies, resulting in the creation of many unofficial “alt” Twitter accounts to maintain communication. Alt accounts had many followers (e.g., 15 accounts had > 100,000) and received a large amount of media attention, making them ideal for better understanding how differences in messaging can affect public engagement with science on microblogging platforms. We analyzed tweets produced by alt and corresponding official agency accounts to compare the two groups and determine if specific features of a tweet made them more likely to be retweeted or liked to help the average scientist potentially reach a broader audience on Twitter. We found adding links, images, hashtags, and mentions, as well as expressing angry and annoying sentiments all increased retweets and likes. Evidence-based terms such as “peer-review” had high retweet rates but linking directly to peer-reviewed publications decreased attention compared to popular science websites. Word choice and attention did not reflect official or alt account types, indicating topic is more important than source. The number of tweets generated and attention received by alt accounts has decreased since their creation, demonstrating the importance of timeliness in science communication on social media. Together our results show potential pathways for scientists to increase efficacy in Twitter communications.

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.

A survey to gather perspectives of DBT/Wellcome Trust India Alliance-funded researchers on public engagement with science

Lately, the Indian research ecosystem has seen an upward trend in scientists showing interest in communicating their science and engaging with non-scientific audiences; however, the number and variety of science communication or public engagement activities undertaken formally by scientists remains low in the country. There could be many contributing factors for this trend. To explore this further, the science funding public charity in India, DBT/Wellcome Trust India Alliance (India Alliance), in a first of its kind of study by a funding agency in India, surveyed its 243 research grantees in November 2020 requesting their views on public engagement with science in India through an online survey. The survey included both quantitative as well as open-ended questions to assess the understanding of, participation in, and attitude of India Alliance Fellows/Grantees towards public engagement with research, identify the enablers, challenges, and barriers to public engagement for India Alliance Fellows/Grantees, understand the specific needs (training/capacity-building, funding, etc.) and develop recommendations for India Alliance as well as for the larger scientific ecosystem in the country. The survey showed that India Alliance grantees are largely motivated to engage with the public about science or their research but lack professional recognition and incentives, training and structural support to undertake public engagement activities.

It’s Contagious! The Effects of Gamifying Refutation Texts on Emotions and Learning

The current study investigated the effects of gamifying refutations on emotions and learning. Refutations have a substantial body of evidence supporting their use to correct misconceptions, yet reduced efficacy has been observed for some topics that induce negative emotional reactions. We tested whether gamification could mitigate these limits given that it capitalizes on positive affective engagement. From May to December 2020, approximately 200,000 individuals were recruited from social media in Canada to engage with a non-game interactive survey as a control or a fully gamified platform focused on correcting COVID-19 misconceptions. Gamification resulted in higher levels of happiness and anxiety and lower levels of anger and skepticism in response to having misconceptions corrected by refutations. Further, participants who engaged with gamified refutations retained correct information after a brief period. Finally, positive emotions and anxiety positively predicted and negative emotions largely negatively predicted retention and support for related public health policies. Implications for scaling up and reinforcing the benefits of refutations for public engagement with science are discussed.

Impacts of genre and access on science discussions: ‘The New Reddit Journal of Science’

Which genre of science writing contributes most to public understanding, and how does that understanding happen? Working within a science in society approach, this paper examines public engagement with science as it occurs in the comments and discussion boards of r/science. Researchers use content analysis to identify relevant concept categories and code comments for interaction with science content. The resulting data are analyzed by genre (scientific news journalism, press release, and research article) and open access status, revealing differences in public engagement with implications for science communicators and scholars seeking to understand how the public interacts with science news.