Scientists' incentives and attitudes toward public communication

A citizen-centred approach to public engagement on the ethical, legal and societal issues of health technologies

Public engagement in health technologies continuously expands thanks to increased recognition and financial support. Yet, the lack of a shared definition and standards enables practitioners to conduct initiatives in ways that prioritise their self-interests over the empowerment of citizens. Experts and policymakers generally design engagement initiatives following rigid protocols to fit their agenda, limiting the influence of citizens upstream. In reaction to this and as an attempt to disambiguate public engagement from an ethical perspective, we investigate its intrinsic value. Starting from the assumption that public engagement must primarily empower citizens and not those who already have enough power to make their voices heard, we argue that the more the engagement process puts citizens at the centre, the more the engagement practice becomes valuable regardless of the methods used. To make the citizen-centred approach a reality, we suggest ethical principles that practitioners could apply across the spectrum of engagement.

Stop the spread: Empowering students to address misinformation through community-engaged, interdisciplinary science communication training

Teaching science in an age of disinformation and misinformation requires empowering students to address inaccurate information in evidence-based ways. Science communication scholarship highlights the growing importance of inclusive and relational approaches for addressing misinformation. Thus, we developed, implemented, and evaluated an interdisciplinary, graduate-level course for students in STEM, journalism/communication, and public health to learn to address misinformation using community-engaged, evidence-based approaches. We used the Theory of Planned Behavior as a theoretical framework for our mixed-methods analysis of the efficacy of this course, assessing both the behaviors that students planned to utilize in community-engaged science communication to address misinformation, as well as the attitudes, norms, and perceived behavioral control that influenced these planned behaviors. Quantitative self-report metrics indicated that this curriculum increased students' subjective norms for misinformation correction as well as perceived behavioral control of science communication and science civic engagement. Thematic analysis of qualitative student interview data showed that the course helped students increase their plans for inclusive approaches to addressing misinformation. This study indicates the importance of community-engaged curriculum to develop the mindset and self-efficacy necessary for scientists-in-training to address misinformation in their communities.

Examination of public perceptions of microbes and microbiomes in the United States reveals insights for science communication

Within a changing research and media landscape, misconceptions and misinformation about microorganisms and microbiomes can arise, necessitating improvements in science communication practices through insights in public perceptions of the microbial world. Yet, little is known about public perceptions of microorganisms and microbiomes, making it difficult to develop tailored messaging. Here we perform an inductive thematic analysis with interviews and surveys from thirty adults across the United States to identify key factors to enhance microbial science communication efforts. Together, our results underscore the importance of 1) recognizing the existing and desired future knowledge of an audience, 2) aligning with broader socio-scientific issues that resonate with people in relevant channels using social networks, 3) fostering collaboration between microbiologists, social scientists, and communicators to improve messaging, and 4) appealing to people's values and emotions to establish meaningful connections. This study concludes that non-microbial interests, such as an interest in health and wellness, may lead to acquisition of microbial knowledge and that people want scientists to share microbial messages preferably on platforms like social media. Additionally, we identified confusion about microbial terms and a desire to understand human-centric benefits of microorganisms and microbiomes. We suggest that microbiologists partner with science communicators to develop microbial messaging, capitalizing on connections to non-microbial interests and appealing to people's microbial worldview.

Great science does not communicate itself: but who should and how?

Cristina Kroon and Britta Eickholt discuss current barriers to effective science communication and propose strategies to overcome them.

Promotional language and the adoption of innovative ideas in science

How are the merits of innovative ideas communicated in science? Here, we conduct semantic analyses of grant application success with a focus on scientific promotional language, which may help to convey an innovative idea's originality and significance. Our analysis attempts to surmount the limitations of prior grant studies by examining the full text of tens of thousands of both funded and unfunded grants from three leading public and private funding agencies: the NIH, the NSF, and the Novo Nordisk Foundation, one of the world's largest private science funding foundations. We find a robust association between promotional language and the support and adoption of innovative ideas by funders and other scientists. First, a grant proposal's percentage of promotional language is associated with up to a doubling of the grant's probability of being funded. Second, a grant's promotional language reflects its intrinsic innovativeness. Third, the percentage of promotional language is predictive of the expected citation and productivity impact of publications that are supported by funded grants. Finally, a computer-assisted experiment that manipulates the promotional language in our data demonstrates how promotional language can communicate the merit of ideas through cognitive activation. With the incidence of promotional language in science steeply rising, and the pivotal role of grants in converting promising and aspirational ideas into solutions, our analysis provides empirical evidence that promotional language is associated with effectively communicating the merits of innovative scientific ideas.

Waving through a window: Agricultural research faculty perspectives on science communication challenges

This qualitative study explores agriculture research faculty's challenges with participating in Science Communication. To explore the challenges shared by faculty, we utilized the proposed Faculty Science Communication Engagement Framework, which identifies three dimensions that may cause challenges for faculty Science Communication work: personal, professional, and institutional. During interviews with 11 research faculty, we identified Science Communication challenges within these dimensions. Participant challenges within the personal dimension include allocation of time, the learning curve, audience familiarity, and mass-media concern. Professional dimension challenges were "it's not my job" and disciplinary norms, while challenges within the institutional dimension included a lack of support and resources. Across these dimensions, faculty challenges revolved around the time required to invest in Science Communication activities, the needed resources (personnel, technology, and financial), the value placed on efforts by their academic institution, and the lack of knowledge regarding Science Communication techniques and audience. These findings are described through rich data, and practical recommendations are provided for fostering future Science Communication engagement and interest among faculty. These include Science Communication training focused on specific content areas, hands-on training and support with Science Communication technologies, including Extension and non-Extension faculty in training sessions, creating structured and strategically implemented shared Science Communication resources at the institutional level, including Science Communication efforts in university strategic planning, and awarding and recognizing faculty who utilize Science Communication successfully.

The next generation of climate scientists as science communicators

Climate scientists face many challenges when it comes to communicating their work to the public, yet it is largely unknown how junior climate scientists give meaning to their role as science communicators. Therefore, the current research conducted five focus group discussions with Dutch junior climate scientists, which were structured around the following themes: (a) common barriers; (b) climate advocacy; (c) message content; and (d) climate skepticism, misinformation, and incivility. The results reveal the motivations and barriers for junior climate scientists to do science communication. New barriers were identified relating to participants' lack of seniority, meaning a self-attributed lack of expertise and not having established their scientific credentials yet, providing evidence for the imposter syndrome. Furthermore, many participants alluded to the information-deficit model and indicated they do not know where to start with science communication. Overall, the findings show uncertainty, which could be mitigated by media training and institutionalized incentives.

A study on biomedical researchers' perspectives on public engagement in Southeast Asia

Introduction: Public engagement is increasingly promoted in the scientific community. Although there are studies about researchers' perspectives on public engagement, these are predominantly from Global North settings and there is little data from the context of Southeast Asia. The Oxford University Clinical Research Unit (OUCRU) is a clinical and public health research programme with sites in Vietnam, Nepal and Indonesia. There is a dedicated public engagement team, and it is recognised as an important part of the research process.   Methods: Through this study we explored the views and needs of local researchers with regards to practicing public engagement. We obtained opinions of 70 researchers through an online survey with both open-ended and closed-ended questions.   Results: Most researchers perceived public engagement as improving public science literacy, rather than supporting public participation in science and research. While the participants largely see public engagement as a necessary practice, they experienced four main barriers to taking part in public engagement: time, lack of capacity, lack of support and personal perceptions. Most participants indicated they had somewhat to low confidence to communicate about science to the public. Experience, skill and knowledge, and personal preference emerged as factors that influence their perceived confidence for science communication. In our analysis, experience appeared to be the main factor contributing to researchers' high confidence.   Recommendations: We recommended to support researchers by not only providing them with training for skills and knowledge, but also with opportunities to conduct public engagement, and a range of methods to suit their personal styles of communicating. It is also evident that more support is needed to build an enabling institutional environment that gives researchers professional recognition for their engagement work. This study, while modest in its scope, has informed our approach to supporting researcher-led engagement, and may guide other institutes wishing to improve this.

Science Communication Training Imparts Confidence and Influences Public Engagement Activity

The impacts of science are felt across all socio-ecological levels, ranging from the individual to societal. In order to adapt or respond to scientific discoveries, novel technologies, or biomedical or environmental challenges, a fundamental understanding of science is necessary. However, antiscientific rhetoric, mistrust in science, and the dissemination of misinformation hinder the promotion of science as a necessary and beneficial component of our world. Scientists can promote scientific literacy by establishing dialogues with nonexperts, but they may find a lack of formal training as a barrier to public engagement. To address this, the American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology (ASBMB) launched the Art of Science Communication course in 2015 in order to provide scientists at all career stages with introductory science communication training. In 2020, we conducted a retrospective survey of former participants to evaluate how the course had impacted participants' science communication behaviors and their confidence engaging with nonexperts, as well as other benefits to their professional development. We found that scientists were significantly more likely to communicate with nonexpert audiences following the course compared to before (77% versus 51%; P < 0.0001). In addition, quantitative and qualitative data suggested that scientists were more confident in their ability to communicate science after completing the course (median of 8, standard deviation [SD] of 0.98 versus median of 5, SD of 1.57; P < 0.0001). Qualitative responses from participants supported quantitative findings. This suggested that the Art of Science Communication course is highly effective at improving the confidence of scientists to engage with the public and other nonexpert audiences regardless of career status. These data-driven perspectives provide a rationale for the implementation of broadly accessible science communication training programs that promote public engagement with science.

Promoting Science Literacy and Awareness across the Globe: the Role of Scientists as Science Ambassadors

Science literacy has many personal and societal benefits that allows for better informed decision-making. Although the importance of science literacy is recognized globally, there are many challenges associated with its promotion. Scientists are more frequently engaging with nonscientific audiences through public outreach activities and with increasing support from institutions and professional societies. This is especially true regarding microbiologists and other related professionals since the start of the global 2019 coronavirus disease pandemic heightened the need to convey novel and rapidly evolving scientific information to lay audiences. The means by which professionals engage with these audiences affect the efficacy of the relay of scientific information. One method of engagement is the "ambassador approach," which aims to establish dialogue among different groups of people and scientists. In this perspective article, we discuss this approach, highlighting activities for the promotion of science literacy organized by the American Society for Microbiology Ambassador Program and similar programs of other scientific societies. We discuss the benefits and challenges of implementing an ambassador approach, propose potential improvements that could be made to existing programs promoting science literacy, and ultimately advocate for increased implementation of science ambassador programs.

How Scientists View Vaccine Hesitancy

This paper examines possible causes, consequences, and potential solutions for addressing vaccine hesitancy in the United States, focusing on the perspectives of academic scientists. By examining the experiences of scientists, who are arguably a critical community in US society, we gain deeper insights into how they understand the complexities of vaccine hesitancy and whether their insights and opinions converge with or diverge from the current literature. We present findings from a national survey of a representative sample of academic scientists from the fields of biology and public health regarding vaccine hesitancy and related topics. Empirical analysis using descriptive, bivariate, and multivariate analyses covers multiple topics, including vaccine controversy, trust in science, causes of vaccine hesitancy, preferred policy and regulatory approaches, risk perceptions, and scientists' ethics and perceived communication roles. The results highlight a diversity of opinions within the scientific community regarding how to improve science-society communication in regard to vaccines, including the need to be transparent and candid to the public about the risk of vaccines and their research.

A triangulated approach for understanding scientists' perceptions of public engagement with science

Scientists are expected to engage with the public, especially when society faces challenges like the COVID-19 pandemic or climate change, but what public engagement means to scientists is not clear. We use a triangulated, mixed-methods approach combining survey and focus group data to gain insight into how pre-tenure and tenured scientists personally conceptualize public engagement. Our findings indicate that scientists' understanding of public engagement is similarly complex and diverse as the scholarly literature. While definitions and examples of one-way forms of engagement are the most salient for scientists, regardless of tenure status, scientists also believe public engagement with science includes two-way forms of engagement, such as citizen and community involvement in research. These findings suggest that clear definitions of public engagement are not necessarily required for its application but may be useful to guide scientists in their engagement efforts, so they align with what is expected of them.

Universities claim to value community-engaged scholarship: So why do they discourage it?

With current crises of academic relevance and legitimacy, there is a need for epistemic equity inherent to community-engaged research. Scholars in science communication and science and technology studies have analyzed, advocated for, and conducted public engagement in pursuit of this goal. However, despite desires to celebrate public engagement, US academic institutions and organizations often present barriers to meaningful community-engaged research. From tenure and promotion requirements, to lack of recognition and resources, universities in the American academic landscape are not currently organized to support such work. In this article, we offer a conceptual framework to examine the complex structural dimensions of academic institutions that have systematically discouraged and devalued faculty participation in community-engaged scholarship. We outline four such structural dimensions: interrogating epistemic biases, neoliberalist tendencies, gendered norms, and colonial-racist defaults. Our goal is to illuminate processes that could inform interventions to bridge the gap between academic aspirations for community-engaged work and current actions in the academy that undermine it.

Undergraduate STEM Students' Science Communication Skills, Science Identity, and Science Self-Efficacy Influence Their Motivations and Behaviors in STEM Community Engagement

While numerous studies have examined how scientists perceive doing public communication and engagement, there is limited research on undergraduate science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) student attitudes toward these meaningful activities. Undergraduate students are more diverse than STEM faculty and may serve as boundary spanners in communities, so exploring their motivations and behaviors in STEM engagement is valuable. For scientists, confidence in communication skills is one driver of public engagement behavior. In this study, we utilized a survey to examine how undergraduate STEM students' science communication skills as well as their science identity and science self-efficacy may drive motivation and behaviors in STEM community engagement. Our findings revealed that STEM students are motivated to do community engagement but lack opportunities to actually do these behaviors. Regression analyses revealed that year in academic progression did not increase STEM students' attitudes and behaviors in community engagement. However, science communication skills, science identity, and science self-efficacy were all predictors of student motivation and behaviors in STEM community engagement. These findings suggest that universities should intentionally provide training in science communication, continue providing support for students developing science identity and self-efficacy, and develop opportunities for undergraduate STEM students to do science outreach and engagement activities.

Analysis of Inclusivity of Published Science Communication Curricula for Scientists and STEM Students

There has been an increased push for science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) students and scientists to be trained in science communication. Science communication researchers have outlined various models of how scientists interact with nonscientists-including deficit, dialogue, and inclusive approaches. We wanted to analyze whether published science communication curricula for STEM students and scientists exhibit features of inclusive science communication. We analyzed n = 81 published science communication trainings. We found an increase in such publications over the past two decades. We coded the trainings according to the science communication model they most closely follow, finding 40.7% deficit, 39.5% dialogue, and 19.8% inclusive. Trainings for STEM undergraduates were the least likely to provide training in the inclusive model. Finally, only 27.2% of publications included evaluation of the efficacy of the curriculum using an external scale or framework. These findings present opportunities: while it is positive that there are more published science communication curricula, science education and communication researchers should develop and publish more-inclusive science communication trainings for STEM students. Additionally, undergraduate students can and should begin their training in science communication with a focus on inclusivity not deficits. Finally, science education researchers should develop more standards for evaluating the efficacy of inclusive science communication training.

Meet the Medicines-A Crowdsourced Approach to Collecting and Communicating Information about Essential Medicines Online

The World Health Organization (WHO) maintains a list of medicines and medical devices, essential medicines, that should be available to everyone, to form a functioning healthcare system. Yet, many of these medicines remain out of reach for people around the world. One significant barrier to improving the accessibility of essential medicines is a paucity of information about both the extent and causes of this problem. E$$ENTIAL MEDICINE$ (E$$) is a citizen science project designed to investigate this deficit of information by recruiting members of the public to find, validate, compile and share information on essential medicines through an open, online database. Herein, we report an approach to crowdsourcing both the collection of information on the accessibility of essential medicines and the subsequent communication of these findings to diverse audiences. The Meet the Medicines initiative encourages members of the public to share information from the E$$ database, in a short video format appropriate for social media. This communication details the design and implementation of our crowdsourced approach and strategies for recruiting and supporting participants. We discuss data on participant engagement, consider the benefits and challenges of this approach and suggest ways to promote crowdsourcing practices for social and scientific good.

How institutional factors at US land-grant universities impact scientists' public scholarship

The call for public scholarship to emphasize the broader impacts of science has raised questions about how universities can support this work among their scientists. This study quantitatively assesses how institutional factors shape scientists' participation in public scholarship, a subset of public engagement focusing on scientists' involvement in public debate and democratic decision-making related to science policy. Based on a 2018 survey of scientists from 46 US land-grant universities (N = 6,242), hierarchical linear modeling results show that institutional factors, including tenure guidelines and the extent of government funding, play a minor role in influencing scientists' public scholarship participation. More importantly, scientists' perceptions of the university climate on support for engagement, including support from high-level administrators and for graduate students, are significant predictors of participation in public scholarship. Ultimately, these findings support the recommendation that universities should coordinate individual motivations with institutional missions to support a broader culture of public engagement.

"The chilling effect": Medical scientists' responses to audience feedback on their media appearances during the COVID-19 pandemic

During the COVID-19 pandemic, many medical scientists became public personas as a result of their media appearances. However, this prominence also made them likely targets of harassment from an increasingly science-skeptic public. Such experiences may lead to scientists cutting back on their public engagement activities, threatening the quality of science communication. This study examines how medical scientists evaluate feedback they received as a result of their media appearances, and how they relate their experiences to general views of the public, as well as their motivations to serve as media experts. Drawing on in-depth interviews with 24 Austrian medical scientists who served as media experts during the first year of the pandemic, we find substantial amounts of online abuse. Yet, this did not cause our respondents to avoid future media appearances, because their motivations to meet the needs of an unsettled public outweighed the experience of being harassed online.

Academics' Attitudes Toward Engaging in Public Discussions: Experimental Evidence on the Impact of Engagement Conditions

Growing demands and expectations on the side of policy makers and the public have changed the conditions for academics' engagement in public discussions. At the same time, risks related to this engagement for the professional and even private lives of academics have become apparent. Conducting a survey experiment among 4091 tenured professors in Germany, we study how these conditions causally affect academics' attitudes toward engaging. Consistent with the crowding-out of intrinsic motivation, we find less-positive attitudes when emphasizing demands for engagement by public authorities and public expectations toward science's societal relevance. Effects are particularly strong among professors endorsing science-society relations. Moreover, effects are similar when highlighting risks associated with engagement, but more pronounced for females and younger professors. Emphasizing public support for academics' engagement has no discernible effects. We conclude that considering individual incentive structures and safeguarding against negative repercussions may promote academics' engagement and an adequate representation of the diversity of academics in the public.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11162-022-09725-4.

Dissemination or participation? Exploring scientists' definitions and science communication goals in the Netherlands

The field of science communication has grown considerably over the past decade, and so have the number of scientific writings on what science communication is and how it should be practiced. The multitude of theoretisations and models has led to a lack of clarity in defining science communication, and to a highly popularised-and theorised-rhetorical shift from deficit to dialogue and participation. With this study, we aim to remediate the absence of research into what science communication is, for scientists themselves. We also investigate whether the transition towards dialogue and participation is reflected in the goals scientists identify as important to their science communication efforts, both in a general and a social media context. For this, we analyse survey data collected from scientists in the Netherlands using thematic qualitative analysis and statistical analysis. Our results reveal six main dimensions of science communication as defined by our respondents. The 584 definitions we analyse demonstrate a focus on a one-way process of transmission and translation of scientific results and their impacts towards a lay audience, via mostly traditional media channels, with the goals of making science more accessible, of educating audiences, and of raising awareness about science. In terms of the goals identified as most important by scientists in the Netherlands, we find goals aligned with the deficit and dialogue models of science communication to be the most important. Overall, our findings suggest we should be cautious in the face of recent claims that we live in a new era of dialogue, transparency, and participation in the realm of science communication.

Meaningful public engagement in the context of open science: reflections from early and mid-career academics

How is public engagement perceived to contribute to open science? This commentary highlights common reflections on this question from interviews with 12 public engagement fellows in Utrecht University’s Open Science Programme in the Netherlands. We identify four reasons why public engagement is an essential enabler of open science. Interaction between academics and society can: (1) better align science with the needs of society; (2) secure a relationship of trust between science and society; (3) increase the quality and impact of science; and (4) support the impact of open access and FAIR data practices (data which meet principles of findability, accessibility, interoperability and reusability). To be successful and sustainable, such public engagement requires support in skills training and a form of institutionalisation in a university-wide system, but, most of all, the fellows express the importance of a formal and informal recognition and rewards system. Our findings suggest that in order to make public engagement an integral part of open science, universities should invest in institutional support, create awareness, and stimulate dialogue among staff members on how to ‘do’ good public engagement.

Public engagement: Faculty lived experiences and perspectives underscore barriers and a changing culture in academia

The idea of faculty engaging in meaningful dialogue with different publics instead of simply communicating their research to interested audiences has gradually morphed from a novel concept to a mainstay within most parts of the academy. Given the wide variety of public engagement modalities, it may be unsurprising that we still lack a comprehensive and granular understanding of factors that influence faculty willingness to engage with public audiences. Those nuances are not always captured by quantitative surveys that rely on pre-determined categories to assess scholars’ willingness to engage. While closed-ended categories are useful to examine which factors influence the willingness to engage more than others, it is unlikely that pre-determined categories comprehensively represent the range of factors that undermine or encourage engagement, including perceptual influences, institutional barriers, and scholars’ lived experiences. To gain insight into these individual perspectives and lived experiences, we conducted focus group discussions with faculty members at a large midwestern land-grant university in the United States. Our findings provide context to previous studies of public engagement and suggest four themes for future research. These themes affirm the persistence of institutional barriers to engaging with the public, particularly the expectations in the promotion process for tenure-track faculty. However, we also find a perception that junior faculty and graduate students are challenging the status quo by introducing a new wave of attention to public engagement. This finding suggests a “trickle-up” effect through junior faculty and graduate students expecting institutional support for public engagement. Our findings highlight the need to consider how both top-down factors such as institutional expectations and bottom-up factors such as graduate student interest shape faculty members’ decisions to participate in public engagement activities.

Risk Researchers' Views About the Goal of Trying to Ensure Policymakers Consider Scientific Evidence

A survey of members of a scientific society focused on risk analysis suggests substantial support for seeing their scientific society pursue the communication goal of "trying to ensure that policymakers consider scientific evidence." Support for pursuing this goal was largely predicted by researchers' beliefs that it was ethical for the society to pursue the goal, that it would be satisfying to see their society pursue the goal, and the belief that the society could have a positive impact on society by pursuing the goal. Normative beliefs about pursuing the goal and organizational efficacy beliefs were not good predictors of goal support. Goal support was measured using a direct measure of perceived goal importance as well as measures focused on the degree to which respondents wanted their society to put resources into providing members with opportunities to pursue the goal and the amount of funding that members thought the society should devote to pursuing the goal. The theory underlying the work argues that we can treat science communicators' choices about communication goals, objectives, and tactics as "planned behaviors" and thus study them using traditional behavior change models.

Environmental Health Literacy as Knowing, Feeling, and Believing: Analyzing Linkages between Race, Ethnicity, and Socioeconomic Status and Willingness to Engage in Protective Behaviors against Health Threats

This study investigates the relationships between environmental health literacy, the characteristics of people (race, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status) associated with health disparities, and people's willingness to engage in protective behaviors against environmental health threats. Environmental health literacy is a framework for capturing the continuum between the knowledge of environmental impacts on public health, and the skills and decisions needed to take health-protective actions. We pay particular attention to three dimensions of environmental health literacy: factual knowledge (knowing the facts), knowledge sufficiency (feeling ready to decide what to do), and response efficacy (believing that protective behaviors work). In June 2020, we collected survey data from North Carolina residents on two topics: the viral infection COVID-19 and industrial contaminants called per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). We used their responses to test stepwise regression models with willingness to engage in protective behaviors as a dependent variable and other characteristics as independent variables, including environmental health literacy. For both topics, our results indicated that no disparities emerged according to socioeconomic factors (level of education, household income, or renting one's residence). We observed disparities in willingness according to race, comparing Black to White participants, but not when comparing White to American Indian, Alaska Native, Asian, Native Hawaiian, or Pacific Islander participants nor Hispanic to non-Hispanic participants. The disparities in willingness between Black and White participants persisted until we introduced the variables of environmental health literacy, when the difference between these groups was no longer significant in the final regression models. The findings suggest that focusing on environmental health literacy could bridge a gap in willingness to protect oneself based on factors such as race/ethnicity and socioeconomic status, which have been identified in the environmental health literature as resulting in health disparities.

Strategic science communication in the age of politicization

This chapter provides an overview of strategic communication concepts and frameworks that support scientists' communication and engagement efforts. While this chapter provides a synthesis of the research in these different areas of science communication and how the life sciences and medical science can leverage particularly insights, communicating science in an age of politicization requires a reflection not just at what drives differences in how the public thinks about the sciences and scientists, but also insights into our shared thoughts and feelings about science. To that end, the chapter concludes with a broader examination of the connection between science and society through an overview of new and innovative research on how both scientists and the public think and feel about science and the sciences more specifically. Connecting these different frameworks and concepts provides important directions for the life science community to consider in their specific communication and engagement efforts, and those of the scientific community more broadly.

The contexts of science journalism in the Brazilian Federal Institutes: characterizing realities and possibilities of communication products

A public teaching and research institution can also be recognized for its scientific projection in society, as well as for interfering directly or indirectly in social dynamics through science. In this sense, this study intends to analyze how science communication is inserted in the communication of Federal Institutes of Brazil, characterizing the contexts in which science journalism develops in these places and the possibilities of products for publicizing science. To this end, we conducted a case study with a mixed approach - qualitative and quantitative methods. Interviews were directed to communication managers (n = 2), research managers (n = 5), and research dean (n = 2). We also applied a questionnaire to journalists and communicators (n = 23), research managers (n = 11), student researchers (n = 52), and researcher supervisors (n = 156). The interviews were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed through thematic analysis. We also use inferential statistics for the questionnaires to compare the opinions and assessments of the groups, contextualizing the dissemination of science, as well as drawing perspectives for improvements and the creation of communication products. The main findings indicate that, for science journalism to develop, it is necessary to a) establish guidelines for the dissemination of science, b) recognize and prioritize research publications, c) plan the work of science journalism and create routines, d) improve communication flow, and e) create journalistic products and processes. From these actions, it may be possible improve communication between Brazilian Federal Institutes and society through science.

Publicação de videoartigos como estratégia para impulsionar o consumo de Ciência

Resumo As novas tecnologias promoveram mudanças importantes nas relações sociais nos últimos anos, as quais estimularam o crescimento da produção de conteúdo científico em formato audiovisual, com destaque para os videoartigos. Assim, este artigo examina a aplicabilidade das novas tendências de publicações audiovisuais como estratégia para impulsionar o consumo de ciência dentro e fora do ecossistema acadêmico. Baseado em um survey exploratório-descritivo realizado com pesquisadores das áreas de Ciências da Saúde e Ciências Humanas, o estudo contribui para mitigar a carência de evidências empíricas, especificamente, sobre quatro pontos: visão de pesquisadores brasileiros acerca do acesso livre e consumo de ciência no Brasil; desconhecimento sobre videoartigo como formato de comunicação científica; grau de interesse em publicações científicas em formato audiovisual; e sentimentos relacionados à visibilidade e ao reconhecimento da ciência no Brasil. Resultados evidenciam o potencial estratégico dos recursos audiovisuais na valorização da comunicação científica, visto que pesquisadores se mostram interessados em publicar videoartigos pelo impacto direto em visibilidade, métricas de desempenho e disseminação da cultura científica com vistas a aumentar o consumo de ciência.

Public Communication Practices and Beliefs Among Conservation Scientists and Practitioners in a Midwest U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Program

Public communication is increasingly recognized as a key component in successful natural resource management within government agencies responsible for conservation. However, communication practices and beliefs among government conservation scientists and practitioners are not well studied or understood. Herein, we present the results of a communication survey disseminated to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) employees working for the agency’s Ecological Services program, a program charged with endangered species recovery. We asked respondents about public communication practices and beliefs, and factors that may motivate or discourage participation in public communication activities. Study respondents reported the lowest levels of participation in media-related, one-way communication activities, including writing educational materials and answering media inquiries, and the engaging in one-on-one communication with stakeholders most frequently. While our results suggest respondents engage in frequent two-way communication with stakeholders, our results also suggest they mostly communicate with stakeholders remotely, and especially by email, rather than in-person. Furthermore, only 36% reported they go out of their way to visit people in communities. On the other hand, a majority agreed they learn new things about species and landscapes (80%) from conversations with stakeholders and often use this knowledge to solve conservation problems (89%). With respect to factors that encouraging and discouraging participation, 93% of respondents indicated a desire to produce better conservation outcomes motivates them to communicate with stakeholders and the public. Many agreed that a lack of time was an obstacle to participating in public communication (68%), but an even larger majority (86%) indicated public unfamiliarity with USFWS presented a barrier to public communication. Similarly, majority of employees also agreed public and stakeholder unfamiliarity with themselves and their work, also presented a communication barrier (62%). Our findings suggest agencies responsible for conservation may want to assess whether agency and its employees adequately invest in communication activities that foster public familiarity with the agency and its employees.

Perceptions, relationships, expectations, and challenges: Views of communication and research for scientific dissemination in Brazilian Federal Institutes

Communicating Brazilian science still seems to be a challenge for journalists and researchers of public institutions of education and science. In this sense, this research aims to identify and analyze scientists’ perceptions regarding the work of journalists, the relationship between these groups, the expectations, and the challenges of science communication in two Federal Institutes of Education in Brazil. We conducted a mixed study in the qualitative stage with the participation of 30 interviewees, and in the quantitative stage, journalists and researchers answered a questionnaire (n = 242). Our results indicated that the work of science communication is not carried out properly in both Institutes and that there is a lack of articulated work among both journalists, communicators, and researchers. The relationship between these groups needs to be built jointly. In this respect, the biggest challenges are to institutionalize science communication, establish a science communication plan, and overcome internal relationship barriers. Our results may underpin science communication policies and policies for scientific dissemination both institutional or even national levels.

Testing how different narrative perspectives achieve communication objectives and goals in online natural science videos

Communication of science through online media has become a primary means of disseminating and connecting science with a public audience. However, online media can come in many forms and stories of scientific discovery can be told by many individuals. We tested whether the relationship of a spokesperson to the science story being told (i.e., the narrative perspective) influences how people react and respond to online science media. We created five video stimuli that fell into three treatments: a scientist presenting their own research (male or female), a third-party summarizing research (male or female), and an infographic-like video with no on-screen presenter. Each of these videos presented the same fabricated science story about the discovery of a new ant species (Formicidae). We used Qualtrics to administer and obtain survey responses from 515 participants (~100 per video). Participants were randomly assigned to one of the videos and after viewing the stimulus answered questions assessing their perceptions of the video (trustworthiness and enjoyment), the spokesperson (trustworthiness and competence), scientists in general (competence and warmth), and attitudes towards the research topic and funding. Participants were also asked to recall what they had seen and heard. We determined that when participants watched a video in which a scientist presented their own research, participants perceived the spokesperson as having more expertise than a third-party presenter, and as more trustworthy and having more expertise than the no-spokesperson stimuli. Viewing a scientist presenting their own work also humanized the research, with participants more often including a person in their answer to the recall question. Overall, manipulating the narrative perspective of the source of a single online video communication effort is effective at impacting immediate objective outcomes related to spokesperson perceptions, but whether those objectives can positively influence long-term goals requires more investigation.

Scientists have favorable opinions on immunity certificates but raise concerns regarding fairness and inequality

During the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, we collected over 12,000 responses from a survey of scientists, who were asked to express their opinions on immunity certificates (also called "immunity passports") as a potential instrument to lessen the impact of the crisis. Overall, we find that scientists perceive immunity certificates as favorable for public health (50.2%) and the state of the economy (54.4%) while one-fifth (19.1%) and one-sixth (15.4%) disagree. Scientists stipulate some concerns about fairness (36.5%) and inequality (22.4%) arising from implementation of immunity certification. We find some smaller differences among scientific fields, particularly between health scientists and social scientists, with the latter being slightly more positive about the effect of immunity certification. Scholars in the United States, including health scientists, are more likely to view the immunity certificates favorably and mention fewer concerns about this policy's effect on fairness and inequality. Female scholars are significantly less in favor of immunity certificates, while scientists with more conservative political views hold more favorable opinions. Our results reveal that given the uncertainties during an early phase of a pandemic, scientists see scope for immunity certification to lessen the general societal impacts of the crisis.

What we know about effective public engagement on CRISPR and beyond

Advances in gene editing technologies for human, plant, and animal applications have led to calls from bench and social scientists, as well as a wide variety of societal stakeholders, for broad public engagement in the decision-making about these new technologies. Unfortunately, there is limited understanding among the groups calling for public engagement on CRISPR and other emerging technologies about 1) the goals of this engagement, 2) the modes of engagement and what we know from systematic social scientific evaluations about their effectiveness, and 3) how to connect the products of these engagement exercises to societal decision or policy making. Addressing all three areas, we systematize common goals, principles, and modalities of public engagement. We evaluate empirically the likely successes of various modalities. Finally, we outline three pathways forward that deserve close attention from the scientific community as we navigate the world of Life 2.0.