When scientists or science reporters communicate research results to the public, this often involves ethical and epistemic risks. One such risk arises when scientific claims cause cognitive or behavioural changes in the audience that contribute to the self-fulfilment of these claims. I argue that the ethical and epistemic problems that such self-fulfilment effects may pose are much broader and more common than hitherto appreciated. Moreover, these problems are often due to a specific psychological phenomenon that has been neglected in (...) the research on science communication: many people tend to conform to ‘descriptive norms’, that is, norms capturing (perceptions of) what others commonly do, think, or feel. Because of this tendency, science communication may frequently produce significant social harm. I contend that scientists have a responsibility to assess the risk of this potential harm and consider adopting strategies to mitigate it. I introduce one such strategy and argue that its implementation is independently well motivated by the fact that it helps improve scientific accuracy. (shrink)

Public science communication serves as a crucial bridge between scientific experts and non-experts, structuring interactions and defining expectations. This strategic role has prompted philosophers of science to explore its impact on folk epistemic notions of science and public trust in science. Investigating these themes through the lens of science communication requires careful consideration of the diverse strategies employed and their characteristics. This chapter traces the evolution and establishment of twentieth- and twenty-first-century forms of (...) science communication. It differentiates features about them, such as how they attribute epistemic authority, direct communication, and—relevant for those interested in the discourse on values in science—the type of values they solicit and propagate. (shrink)

A pandemic of misinformation is said to spread alongside the COVID-19 pandemic. The need to properly inform the public is stronger than ever in the fight against misinformation, but what ‘properly’ means in this context is a quite controversial issue. In what follows, I discuss the challenges we face in communicating COVID-19 health information to the public, with the aim to shed light on some ethical and policy issues emerging in science (communication) in times of crises.

Given the abrupt global disruption caused by SARS-CoV-2, one might think that the COVID pandemic was an unpredictable event. But in the years leading up to the emergence of the COVID pandemic, several documents had already been warning of the increasing occurrences of new disease outbreaks with pandemic potential and lack of corresponding policies to promote pandemic preparedness and response. In this article, we call these documents “early warnings”. We argue that a survey of early warnings can help science (...) communicators to promote the public understanding of evidence-based pandemic preparedness and response policies at local or international level. Our proposal differs from other approaches to pandemic preparedness and response in that it highlights the relevance of documents published before the COVID outbreak. We show that the early warnings did not become outdated after the COVID outbreak, but, rather, that they are even more pressing now. (shrink)

We live in a world where science and technology (S&T) are ingrained in every aspect of our daily lives. Consequently, people are increasingly required to integrate information from science with their values and other considerations as they make critical decisions based on that information, such as decisions regarding vaccination, food safety, climate change, etc. However, effective communication of science and technology (S&T) requires skills that are often lacking, leading to incomplete and ineffective science communication (...) (SciComm) efforts that hinder the understanding of scientific knowledge. SciComm is crucial for accelerating scientific temper and bridging the gap between science and society. Undoubtedly SciComm can empower science, technology and innovation (STI) ecosystems to address global challenges. As a result, globally it improves relationships by improving the relationships with stakeholders within the STI ecosystem. With SciComm, public interests can be placed at the centre of how knowledge is generated, shared and applied, thus maximising the benefits of science and technology while mitigating its limitations. When it comes to raising awareness about issues such as climate change, vaccination, etc., scientists are increasingly expected to engage with the public, although the majority of them often feel underprepared for such activities and report a lack of adequate training and clear and consistent policy/guidelines. SciComm needs to be more focused on policies and practices to continue to evolve. This chapter looks at the institutional practices of communicating S&T in the context of training and policy. It is well-known that SciComm continues to grow, develop and change as a practice and field of research. SciComm practices have been transformed by digitalisation. In this chapter, there is an additional focus on communicating S&T in a changing landscape. This chapter not only delves into the institutional practices but also explores the efforts, motivations, challenges and resources available for SciComm. It provides a glimpse into contemporary SciComm and its participants. It also covers India’s sociohistorical context, Including scientific institutions, government policies, and initiatives, and sheds light on how this field is evolving. (shrink)

For this handbook, we decided to combine a first strategy that looks at different research approaches and asks for their specific contribution to the study of science communication. This is the aim of section I. A second and third strategy is to describe main topics and central aspects of internal and external science communication. This is the aim of sections II and III, respectively: In section II the authors deal with text types, media, and practices of (...) internal science communication. Section III is devoted to external science communication and the relation between science, scientists, and the public. A fourth strategy is based on an evolutionary perspective: How has science communication evolved, what are current trends, and what could or should be future developments? In sections IV and V the authors share an evolutionary perspective: they deal with the history of science communication and with current and future trends. (shrink)

Epistemic injustice occurs when someone is wronged in their capacity as a knower.[1] More and more attention is being paid to the epistemic injustices that exist in our scientific practices. In a recent paper, Fabien Medvecky argues that science communication is fundamentally epistemically unjust. In what follows we briefly explain his argument before raising several challenges to it.

Science communication, as a field and as a practice, is fundamentally about knowledge distribution; it is about the access to, and the sharing of knowledge. All distribution brings with it issues of ethics and justice. Indeed, whether science communicators acknowledge it or not, they get to decide both which knowledge is shared, and who gets access to this knowledge. As a result, the decisions of science communicators have important implications for epistemic justice: how knowledge is distributed (...) fairly and equitably. This paper presents an overview of issues related to epistemic justice for science communication, and argues that there are two quite distinct ways in which science communicators can be just in the way they distribute knowledge. Both of these paths will be considered before concluding that, at least on one of these accounts, science communication as a field and as a practice is fundamentally epistemically unjust. Possible ways to redress this injustice are suggested. (shrink)

Science communication has traditionally been seen as a means of crossing the boundary of science: moving scientific knowledge into the public. This paper presents an alternative understanding. Drawing upon a particular case of social science communication in the form of an interactive installation about the social responsibility of science, it develops the concept of boundary space where phenomena can simultaneously belong to science and nonscience. In addition, the paper describes how the installation functions (...) as a space for interaction between knowledge communication and knowledge production. The paper argues that we should understand science communication as a social practice, which allows scientists and nonscientists to cooperate in performing science as an important part of society. The aim is to add a new kind of analysis to traditional criticisms of deficit-thinking and popularization by asking what can we say more about science communication if we understand it as part of science as a social activity. (shrink)

This open access book presents groundbreaking research, offering new empirical findings, showcasing a range of different methods, and advancing theoretical perspectives relating to science communication and trust. The investigation of science communication and trust is enhanced by the many international scholars and disciplinary approaches featured. The book includes three thematic sections: the first focuses on the role of trustworthy science communicators, the second is concerned with the varying contexts of science communication for trust, (...) while the third unpacks various features of trust in science. The volume thus provides the reader with invaluable insights into the highly salient topic of science communication and trust. (shrink)

There are many ways in which biases can enter processes of scientific reasoning. One of these is what Ludwik Fleck has called a “harmony of illusions”. In this paper, Fleck’s ideas on the relevance of social mechanisms in epistemic processes and his detailed description of publication processes in science will be used as a starting point to investigate the connection between cognitive processes, social dynamics, and biases in this context. Despite its usefulness as a first step towards a more (...) detailed analysis, Fleck’s account needs to be updated in order to take the developments of digital communication technologies of the 21st century into account. Taking a closer look at today’s practices of science communication shows that information and communication technologies (ICTs) play a major role here. By presenting a detailed case study concerning the database SCOPUS, the question will be investigated how such ICTs can influence the division of epistemic labour. The result will be that they potentially undermine the epistemic benefits of social dynamics in science communication due to their inherent tendency to reduce the diversity of scientific hypotheses and ideas. (shrink)

Scientists often use generics, that is, unquantified statements about whole categories of people or phenomena, when communicating research findings (e.g., “statins reduce cardiovascular events”). Large language models (LLMs), such as ChatGPT, frequently adopt the same style when summarizing scientific texts. However, generics can prompt overgeneralizations, especially when they are interpreted differently across audiences. In a study comparing laypeople, scientists, and two leading LLMs (ChatGPT-5 and DeepSeek), we found systematic differences in interpretation of generics. Compared to most scientists, laypeople judged scientific (...) generics as more generalizable and credible, while LLMs rated them even higher. These mismatches highlight significant risks for science communication. Scientists may use generics and incorrectly assume laypeople share their interpretation, while LLMs may systematically overgeneralize scientific findings when summarizing research. Our findings underscore the need for greater attention to language choices in both human and LLM-mediated science communication. (shrink)

There is a correlation between positions taken on some scientific questions and political leaning. One way to explain this correlation is the cultural cognition hypothesis (CCH): people's political leanings are causing them to process evidence to maintain fixed answers to the questions, rather than to seek the truth. Another way is the different background belief hypothesis (DBBH): people of different political leanings have different background beliefs which rationalize different positions on these scientific questions. In this article, I argue for two (...) things. I argue that two attempts by proponents of the CCH to discredit the DBBH fail. And I argue that this matters, because while the CCH makes epistemic paternalistic interventions seem called for (as some philosophers have argued compellingly), the DBBH does not. The DBBH makes it much easier to stay closer to an ideal of deliberative democracy. (shrink)

In the first book-length study of American philosophy at the turn of the century, Daniel J. Wilson traces the formation of philosophy as an academic discipline. Wilson shows how the rise of the natural and physical sciences at the end of the nineteenth century precipitated a "crisis of confidence" among philosophers as to the role of their discipline. Deftly tracing the ways in which philosophers sought to incorporate scientific values and methods into their outlook and to redefine philosophy itself, Wilson (...) moves between close analysis of philosophical texts and consideration of professional careers of illustrative philosophers, such as Charles Sanders Peirce, John Dewey, and Josiah Royce. The author situates the emergence of professional philosophy in the context of the professionalization of American higher education and articulates, in the case of philosophy, the structures and values of a professional discipline. One of the most important consequences of this transformation was a new emphasis on communal theories of truth. Peirce, Dewey, and Royce all developed sophisticated and important theories of community as they were engaged in reshaping and redefining the limits of philosophy. This book will be of great importance for those interested in the history of philosophy, the rise of professions, and American intellectual and educational history, and to all those seeking to understand the contemporary revival of pragmatic thought and theories of community. (shrink)

Science communication is as much about communication as it is about science (if not more). In this chapter, we turn to the communication side of the field and presents Codes of ethics and principles from communication-related fields closely linked to various forms of science communication. Beginning with a case study of a science journalism to set the scene, the chapter then presents an overview of journalism ethics, public relations ethics and ethical (...) principles from communication associations and discussed what these can bring to our understanding of ethics relevant to science communication. The chapter closes with a discussion on the role of rhetoric in science communication. (shrink)

The aim of this article is to propose a methodological externalism that takes knowledge about science to be partly constituted by the environment. My starting point is the debate about extended cognition in contemporary philosophy and cognitive science. Externalists claim that human cognition extends beyond the brain and can be partly constituted by external devices. First, I show that most studies of public knowledge about science are based on an internalist framework that excludes the environment we usually (...) utilize to make sense of science and does not allow the possibility of extended knowledge. In a second step, I argue that science communication studies should adopt a methodological externalism and accept that knowledge about science can be partly realized by external information resources such as Wikipedia. (shrink)

This chapter articulates some epistemological and ethical dilemmas in science communication. The first dilemma is faced by science reporters such as journalists. It arises from a tension between two objectives: reporting the most reliable information while at the same time giving a balanced presentation of different perspectives. The second dilemma is faced by scientific expert testifiers, and arises when they engage in scientific expert trespassing testimony. Trespassing testimony—testifying outside of one’s domain of expertise—is usually epistemically problematic. However, (...) it can also be epistemically good. As a result, scientists may face a dilemma as to whether and how to testify. The chapter provides partial resolution strategies for both kinds of dilemma, but suggests that even so residual hard dilemmas will persist. Consequently, it articulates a general unifying solution-strategy, which consists of a general norm of public scientific testimony. (shrink)

There is a kind of radical trust that is characterised by being absolutely opposed to knowledge: once people know they are trusting, they are no longer trusting because to radically trust implies having no knowledge, forcing people to trust in the unknown. This conceptualisation of trust seems to be neglected in science communication studies. Trusting a scientist stems from knowing, even if only vaguely, what they are and what they do. Science communication is not, thus, a (...) case of blind trust, a trust without some kind of knowledge. However, it is possible to conclude that there are two moments where radical trust is at play in science communication: when the scientific matter at hand is too complex, and when laypeople’s socioeconomic disadvantages force them to trust. The problem is that these two seem difficult to separate from one another. Given the effects of socioeconomic inequalities in knowledge acquisition and communication, which means that while some people trust radically out of choice, others are forced to do so because they have no choice, one proposed solution is a more careful accountability of the economic conditions and the effects of science production and communication on disadvantaged laypeople. (shrink)

The aim of the present article is to discuss several consequences of the Open Science from a perspective of science communication and philosophy of communication. Apart from the purely communicative and philosophical issues, the paper deals with the questions that concern the science popularization process through social media. The article consists of three sections: the first one suggests a definition of science communication and social media, the second examines the transformation of science (...) in the Age of the Internet and considers the influence of social media on science communication, the third and final one presents some case studies and philosophical observations. The most important conclusion to be reached here is that the social media have changed science and science communication. Twitter and blogs as novelty tools of science communication can be useful and meaningful for both science and society. Furthermore, social media can be used to facilitate broader involvement of citizens in the discussion about science. (shrink)

Principlism might seem a lofty ideal, so this chapter takes an applied turn to ground the abstract discussion in real-world settings. This is done through three case studies of how the principles proposed in the previous chapters can be applied; the proposes principles being Utility (of the information communicated), Accuracy, Kairos and Generosity. The first case considered is a case the book opened with involving genetic testing. The second case we consider is the well-known L’Aquila earthquake case, and lastly, we (...) consider the bias that arises because unsuccessful science communication fails to get mentioned. Each of these cases shows not only what is problematic, but also sheds light on how the principles can be used to be more ethical. (shrink)

This theoretical chapter asks how considerations and policies related to languages shape science communication in two small countries, Estonia and Finland, both of which have a well-established science communication ecosystem and high levels of trust in science. The aim is to discuss how languages, trust, and diversity are intertwined in science communication practices in these small but multilingual areas. It becomes evident that in such contexts, the linguistic choices in science communication (...) practices are tightly bound to structural characteristics of science, the education system, and public communication. For communicating scientists, a key question is mastering the small countries’ dilemma of seeking a balance between international relevance and local impact, both requiring different linguistic strategies. We also demonstrate how language policy significantly shapes the science communication strategiescommunication strategies towards linguistic minority groups. The chapter concludes that the linguistic variation used in science (communication) is heterogeneous and reflects the rapidly changing societies’ varying linguistic practices. (shrink)

This paper develops a fourth model of public engagement with science, grounded in the principle of nurturing scientific agency through participatory bioethics. It argues that social media is an effective device through which to enable such engagement, as it has the capacity to empower users and transforms audiences into co-producers of knowledge, rather than consumers of content. Social media also fosters greater engagement with the political and legal implications of science, thus promoting the value of scientific citizenship. This (...) argument is explored by considering the case of nanoscience and nanotechnology, as an exemplar for how emerging technologies may be handled by the scientific community and science policymakers. (shrink)

So far this book has focused on the ethics of science communication practice, culminating in a set of proposed principles for the field. This chapter takes a different tack and looks at the ethics of the field of science communication as a whole; is there something specifically moral about science communication as a field. The chapter considers oft-repeated claims that there is an anti-science crisis and a science communication crisis and argues (...) there is no such crisis. There maybe an epistemic crisis, or an expert-trust crisis, but these stretch far beyond science. The chapter then looks at the effect of presenting these crises as being specifically about science on other fields of knowledge and to the social imagining of what good knowledge is. (shrink)

Epistemic paternalism involves interfering with the inquiry of others, without their consent, for their own epistemic good. Recently, such paternalism has been discussed as a method of getting the broader public to have more accurate views on important policy relevant matters. In this paper, I discuss a novel problem for such paternalism—what I call epistemic spillovers. The problem arises because what matters for rational belief is one’s total evidence, and further, individual pieces of evidence can have complex interactions with one (...) another. Because of this, I argue that justified epistemic paternalism requires the would-be paternalist to be in an unusually strong epistemic position, one that most would-be paternalists are unlikely to meet. (shrink)

Science communication is a broad field of empirical and applied studies and of theoretical reflection. There are three main models of science communication: deficit, dialogue and participation. These models assume different goals and mechanisms of communication, as well as different social positions. The deficit model was dominant throughout the second half of the 20th century. The deficit model assumes that the key characteristic of the public is the deficit of scientific knowledge. The consequence of the (...) deficit of scientific knowledge in public is a wary or hostile attitude towards science. The goal of communication is to overcome the deficit, and the mechanisms are enlightenment and popularization. The dialogue model of communication emerged in the 90s as an alternative to the deficit model. The goal of the dialogue model is to ensure mutual understanding and trust between scientists and the public. The inclusion of the scientific community in public dialogue ensures trust. The mechanisms are public debate, expertise, the visibility of scientists, and the engagement of people outside the academy in scientific communication. In the dialogue model the scientific community loses its separate position and communicate on equal terms with other communities. The participation model was developed a little later than the dialogue model. The participation model involves the engagement of society in the process of management and production of science. One of the mechanisms of participation is “citizen science”. The social position of scientific community becomes blurred and amorphous. We suppose that the basic matrix of science communication is the deficit model. Some specific mechanisms of the dialog and participation models can be demanded in practice, but the asymmetry of access and possession of scientific knowledge is the starting point that justifies both the existence of science as a separate institution and the very need for communication with non-academic communities. (shrink)

This book presents the first comprehensive set of principles for an ethics of science communication. We all want to communicate science ethically, but how do we do so? What does being ethical when communicating science even mean? The authors argue that ethical reasoning is essential training for science communicators. The book provides an overview of the relationship between values, science, and communication. Ethical problems are examined to consider how to create an ethics of (...) science communication. These issues range from the timing of communication, narratives, accuracy and persuasion, to funding and the client-public tension. The book offers a tailor-made ethics of science communication based on principlism. Case studies are used to demonstrate how this tailor-made ethics can be applied in practice. (shrink)

As an important carrier of scientific and cultural communication, auto museums play a unique role in public science popularization. This paper takes Beijing Auto Museum as an example to review the practice of science communication in auto museums, and systematically sort out its mode of science communication practice through field research and case study analysis and other research methods. The study focuses on the four dimensions of exhibition communication, academic communication, public education, (...) and cultural creativity, and reveals the innovative path of cross-border integration of contemporary auto museums. In terms of exhibition communication, it builds a dual narrative system of ‘science and technology + humanities’, and realizes the concrete expression of technical principles through immersive scenarios and interactive exhibits; in terms of academic communication, it relies on the publication of academic research and cooperation in academic exchanges to promote the production and transformation of knowledge; in terms of publicity and education, it develops science popularization activities, communication and publication, innovates the mode of science popularization education for young people by means of digitalization; in terms of cultural creativity, the development of ‘theatre + film + radio’ joint communication mechanism and cultural creativity venues has enabled the sustainable communication of science and culture. The study found that Beijing Auto Museum has successfully realized the transformation from collection display to value transmission by constructing a science communication system, and its communication paradigm provides operational experience for science and technology museums, which is of great significance in enhancing public scientific literacy and promoting science communication. (shrink)

This exploratory study is focused on the perceptions of science communication practitioners about the activities of scientists and the audiences of the marine sciences outreach in Portugal. Using the qualitative method of thematic analysis and collecting data through semistructured interviews of 14 practitioners of diverse professions, backgrounds, ages, and stages of career, it was found that the role of marine scientists in this area is traditionally viewed as reduced, but with a slight improvement in the past 5 to (...) 10 years. Despite having a historical connection with and curiosity about the sea, audiences were considered to have a mostly utilitarian interest in the marine sciences. Most practitioners had a view of science communication connected to the knowledge deficit model, with a minority articulating a more dialogical model. Although there are signs of conflict between science communicators and scientists, the proliferation of training opportunities in science communication at the national level, the perceived increase of interest and participation of marine scientists in public communication in the past years, and the consolidation of science communicators as part of the scientific community offer positive prospects for the future of outreach of marine sciences in Portugal. (shrink)

Over the past ten to fifteen years, medical interventions, therapeutic approaches and scientific studies involving mindfulness meditation have gained traction in areas such as clinical psychology, psychotherapy, and neuroscience. Simultaneously, mindfulness has had a very strong public appeal. This article examines some of the ways in which the medical and scientific meaning of mindfulness is communicated in public and to the public. In particular, it shows how experts in the field of mindfulness neuroscience seek to communicate to the public at (...) large the imperative of brain fitness for the promotion of health, wellbeing and happiness. The study identifies claims being made in popular outlets that, by and large, bypass traditional mass media, such as self-help books, websites and online videos. By treating this material as a form of personalized science communication, this article contributes to the body of literature that understands science communication as a continuum and the boundary between science and popularized science as the outcome of human negotiations. The study finds that processes of personalization help to build bridges between scientific findings and their supposed application, that they infuse science with subjective meaning, and turn expert communication with the public into a moral vocation. (shrink)

Science communication has gained high importance in the current knowledge and risk society. Nevertheless, there is still a lack of qualitative studies on how non-experts and experts engage in opinionated scientific debates and which linguistic devices they use to gain influence on other people’s attitudes toward a scientific issue.In our study, we examine dialogical modes of science communication (i.e. weblogs) used by bloggers and audiences to engage into opinionated discourse about scientific endeavors. As those exchanges easily (...) lead to controversies between different points of views, stances and attitudes, we focus from a rhetorically-driven linguistic perspective on devices to persuade the other participants and readers and to control the discourse. Hence, we ask which linguistic instruments are used to gain influence on influence. The aim of our study is to get deeper insights into the persuasive strategies mainly used in those forms of external science communication. (shrink)

In daily life, most of us lack the cognitive resources to make judgements on scientific matters by ourselves. Often, we reach our judgements by relying on testimony of others. This is captured by the concept of epistemic deference: one defers one’s belief on a matter to others’ testimony. When it comes to scientific matters, most of us don’t just defer to anyone’s testimony: one first identifies trustworthy informants on the matter and defers to their testimony only. Conventional literature on this (...) topic is dominantly concerned with highly idealised contexts and falls silent on non-ideal ones. I show this with a case study of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in China. In this paper, I make a preliminary attempt to provide alternative guidance for problematic environments with politicized scientific institutions and heavy information censorship such as China. I argue that the ‘dissent scouting’ requirement is a helpful addition in epistemically problematic environments. (shrink)

We argue that the societal consequences of the scientific realism debate, in the context of science-to-public communication are often overlooked and careful theorizing about it needs further empirical groundwork. As such, we conducted a survey experiment with 130 academics (from physics, chemistry, and biology) and 137 science communicators. We provided them with an 11-item questionnaire probing their views of scientific realism and related concepts. Contra theoretical expectations, we find that (a) science communicators are generally more inclined (...) towards scientific antirealism when compared to scientists in the same academic fields, though both groups show an inclination towards realism and (b) academics who engage in more theoretical work are not less (or more) realist than experimentalists. Lastly, (c), we fail to find differences with respect to selective realism but find that science communicators are significantly less epistemically voluntarist compared to their academic counterparts. Overall, our results provide first empirical evidence on the views of scientists and science communicators on scientific realism, with some results running contra to the theoretical expectations, opening up new empirical and theoretical research directions. (shrink)

ABSTRACTThis study reconsiders scientists’ identity in terms of vocation vs. profession, proceeding from Max Weber’s differentiation between science as profession and science as an inner calling fo...

Numerous societal issues, from climate change to pandemics, require public engagement with scientific research. Such engagement reveals challenges that can arise when experts communicate with laypeople. One of the most common frameworks for framing these communicative interactions is the deficit model of science communication, which holds that laypeople lack scientific knowledge and/or positive attitudes towards science, and that imparting knowledge will fill knowledge gaps, lead to desirable attitude/behavior changes, and increase trust in science. §1 introduces the (...) deficit model in more detail and shows that adhering to this model often fails to achieve its aims, which motivates the main question of this chapter: how can Ludwik Fleck’s theory of thinking collectives address the persistent problem of deficit approaches in science communication? I suggest that it can do so by exposing the deficit model’s implicit assumption of an expert-lay divide. Accordingly, §2 lays out Fleck’s theory and §3 contrasts it with contemporary debates about science communication. Following this descriptive work, §4 draws on Fleck’s ideas to make four concrete suggestions for further questioning the expert-lay divide. (shrink)

Previous research has shown that uncertainty communication by scientists (i. e., expressing reservations towards their own research) increases the public’s trust in their work. The reasons for this have not been elucidated, however. In the present study, we provide a theoretical explanation for this phenomenon. Specifically, we expected that attributed communicator bias would mediate the effect of uncertainty communication on trust. Results from a mixed-design experiment (N = 88), using modified science news articles, revealed support for this (...) hypothesis. Positive effects of uncertainty communication on trust and donation intention were both mediated by attributed communicator bias. (shrink)

Understanding science requires appreciating the values it presupposes and its social context. Both the values that scientists hold and their social context can affect scientific communication. Philosophers of science have recently begun studying scientific communication, especially as it relates to public policy. Some have proposed “guiding principles for communicating scientific findings” to promote trust and objectivity. This paper contributes to this line of research in a novel way using behavioural experimentation. We report results from three experiments (...) testing judgments about the trustworthiness, competence and objectivity of scientists. More specifically, we tested whether such judgments are affected by three factors: consulting or not consulting nonscientists, conducting research under a restrictive or non-restrictive governmental communication policy, and the source of a lab’s funding (i.e., government funding, private funding, or a combination of the two). We found that each of these factors affects ordinary judgments of trustworthiness, competence and objectivity. These findings support several recommendations that could help improve scientific communication and communication policies. (shrink)

Philosophy of science attempts to reconstruct science as a rational cognitive enterprise. In doing so, it depicts a normative ideal of knowledge acquisition and does not primarily seek to describe actual scientific practice in an empirically adequate way. A comprehensive picture of what good science consists in may serve as a standard against which we evaluate and criticize actual scientific practices. Such a normative picture may also explain why it is reasonable for us to trust scientists – (...) to the extent that they live up to the ideal – and to rely on their findings in decision making. Likewise, a sound normative understanding of science exposes the limits of scientific understanding and prevents us from placing blind faith in scientists and experts. For these reasons, philosophy of science represents a useful resource and background theory for the practice and study of science communication. In this handbook article, we provide an opinionated introduction to philosophy of science by flashing a light on 22 central issues which (we think) are of special interest to scholars and practitioners of science communication – and, in particular, to scholars and practitioners of external science communication. (shrink)

In 2007 a social scientist and a designer created a spatial installation to communicate social science research about the regulation of emerging science and technology. The rationale behind the experiment was to improve scientific knowledge production by making the researcher sensitive to new forms of reactions and objections. Based on an account of the conceptual background to the installation and the way it was designed, the paper discusses the nature of the engagement enacted through the experiment. It is (...) argued that experimentation is a crucial way of making social science about science communication and engagement more robust. (shrink)

The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic has brought science to the fore of public discourse and, considering the complexity of the issues involved, with it also the challenge of effective and informative science communication. This is a particularly contentious topic, in that it is both highly emotional in and of itself; sits at the nexus of the decision-making process regarding the handling of the pandemic, which has effected lockdowns, social behaviour measures, business closures, and others; and concerns the recording (...) and reporting of disease mortality. To clarify a point that has caused much controversy and anger in the public debate, the first part of the present article discusses the very fundamentals underlying the issue of causative attribution with regards to mortality, lays out the foundations of the statistical means of mortality estimation, and concretizes these by analysing the recording and reporting practices adopted in England and their widespread misrepresentations. The second part of the article is empirical in nature. I present data and an analysis of how COVID-19 mortality has been reported in the mainstream media in the UK and the USA, including a comparative analysis both across the two countries as well as across different media outlets. The findings clearly demonstrate a uniform and worrying lack of understanding of the relevant technical subject matter by the media in both countries. Of particular interest is the finding that with a remarkable regularity (????>0.998), the greater the number of articles a media outlet has published on COVID-19 mortality, the greater the proportion of its articles misrepresented the disease mortality figures. (shrink)

This study provides an overview of social media usage among researchers in Malaysia and examines factors affecting their use for science communication. The online questionnaire gathered the opinions of 425 researchers from over 20 science disciplines. The descriptive analysis highlighted usage preferences for 10 commonly used social media, while statistical analysis in particular MANOVA and correlation analysis, identified significant factors influencing researchers’ social media use. Up to 62% of respondents believe that social media is more effective in (...) reaching the public, compared to other media. WhatsApp, Facebook, YouTube, Google Scholar, and ResearchGate are routinely used or perceived as beneficial to use. However, Twitter, Instagram, WordPress, and LinkedIn are seldom used because they are less preferred for science communication. Seniority, perceived importance, and perceived credibility are significantly correlated with both intention and actual use. Meanwhile, age and experience are significantly correlated with actual use, but not the intention. Researchers are likely to post and share more on social media if they believe that science communication is important or if they are credible enough to present a scientific consensus. This study offered important insights into the perceptions, concerns, and factors influencing their use for science communication. By determining the perceptions, concerns and motivators affecting researchers, the findings shed light on effective ways to promote researchers’ use of social media to communicate scientific knowledge. (shrink)

In this response to de Melo-Martín’s insightful comments on Scientific Testimony, I consider whether reported skepticism about a factual scientific hypothesis reflects genuine attitudes toward it or merely negative attitudes toward an associated policy. On the basis of this discussion, I draw some lessons about policy-relevant science communication and try to articulate them in the form of a principle.

When laypersons are presented with scientific information which seeks to modify their way of life, they are expected to believe, suspend belief, or reject it. Second-order assessment of scientific experts helps laypersons to make an informed decision in such situations. This is an assessment of the trustworthiness of the person making the scientific claim. In this paper I challenge the optimistic view of Anderson (2011), regarding the ease with which laypersons can perform second-order assessment of experts, by pointing out some (...) of the obstacles that may prevent laypersons from arriving at an informed decision through this means. By showing that laypersons cannot easily perform second-order assessment of experts, I make a case for sharing epistemic burdens in science communication by using Lackey's (2006) concept of dualism in the epistemology of testimony and Irzik and Kurtulmus’ (2019) work on public epistemic trust in science, as a guide. I invite experts to bear a greater share of the epistemic burden when communicating with laypersons because of their privileged epistemic condition vis-à-vis laypersons. (shrink)

Within educational science and communication science, the concepts of scientific literacy and effectiveness of science communication have been intensely debated in relation to the free types of education, but the research did not focus on the specificity of their target (the general public) in relation to the specificity of their object (science). In general, research maintained an exclusively externalist view for these concepts and associated them with the complexity and diversity of teaching science (...) and less with the epistemic dimension of science communication as a transfer of understandable knowledge in particular conditions. This prospected research advances an internalist view on these concepts, aiming to answer the question of whether science communication (with a conceptual meaning that embeds understanding, message, and goal) to the general public is possible and in what form, within an epistemological theoretical framework. (shrink)

During the COVID-19 pandemic, perception surveys suggest that the public gained trust in scientists and their jobs, but not without some initial doubts. The uncertainties of science can be hard to communicate and, especially in connection with health, scientists must consider what makes the public trust them. To understand in whom the public trust as sources of scientific information, a survey was conducted among engineering and science students and teachers in Portugal. Although the results are not representative of (...) society, but only a qualified segment, some patterns can be inferred that are not so different from the results that Portuguese society as such showed in the last Eurobarometer, which will constitute comparative material in this chapter. The results of this study show that students and teachers give similar answers, despite age and career differences, and that they largely trust scientists from universities, public research institutes and private companies. It is also clear that they do not trust politicians or the military as the rest of Portuguese society on science and technology does. In the present chapter, it is argued that science communication can play an important role in building relationships of trust between experts and audiences. (shrink)

This chapter on the emergence of Indian scientific community explores the contribution of leading Indian scientists in laying the foundations for professionalization of science and advancement of scientific knowledge during 1870s and 1940s. As the chapter demonstrates, leading scientists in this era such as Mahenderlal Sircar, Ashutosh Mukherjee, C. V. Raman, M. N. Saha, P. C. Ray and S. N. Bose, to name some, waged an intellectual struggle against the British colonial gate keepers who resisted local and indigenous initiatives (...) in the professionalization of science. In collaboration with Indian political elite, systematic efforts were directed at laying the foundations for cultivation of science institutions from translation of science into local languages, popularization of science, promotion of science teaching in colleges and higher institutions of learning to basic scientific research. These developments have come about relatively independent or outside the confines of colonial science enterprises promoted by British colonial regime. Between 1890s and 1940s half a dozen advance research specialist groups emerged in plant physiology, chemistry, physics, mathematics and astronomy. In a large measure, the genesis of Indian science community had taken roots outside the confines of colonial science enterprises as these institutions were not conducive for the professionalization of science and the advancement of knowledge. Indian scientific intellectual struggle in laying the foundations of basic research during this period had dented the Centre-Periphery relations or dichotomy in science practiced by British colonial scientific enterprise. This chapter challenges the basic assertion of key classical colonial thinkers, such as George Basalla, that independent scientific tradition in the colonial era emerged outside the confines of colonial science enterprises. (shrink)