The communications gap between scientists and public (original) (raw)

Scientists must conquer reluctance to speak out

Nature, 2004

Sir-We read with some concern the views of M. J. Hsu and G. Agoramoorthy in Correspondence, that "Scientists and teachers should ignore politics" (Nature 431, 627; 2004). They argue that scientists help society most effectively through teaching and research, rather than by taking part in election campaigns. In the current political climate in the United States, this well-intentioned argument represents a grave threat to both science and society.

When Science Becomes Embroiled in Conflict: Recognizing the Public’s Need for Debate while Combating Conspiracies and Misinformation

Annals of The American Academy of Political and Social Science, 2022

Most democracies seek input from scientists to inform policies. This can put scientists in a position of intense scrutiny. Here we focus on situations in which scientific evidence conflicts with people's worldviews, preferences, or vested interests. These conflicts frequently play out through systematic dissemination of disinformation or the spreading of conspiracy theories, which may undermine the public's trust in the work of scientists, muddy the waters of what constitutes truth, and may prevent policy from being informed by the best available evidence. However, there are also instances in which public opposition arises from legitimate value judgments and lived experiences. In this article, we analyze the differences between politically-motivated science denial on the one hand, and justifiable public opposition on the other. We conclude with a set of recommendations on tackling misinformation and understanding the public's lived experiences to preserve legitimate democratic debate of policy.

Science and Public Controversy: Editor's Introduction

For whatever reasons, the history of science is replete with examples of protracted, unexpected, and unresolved controversies erupting across the scientist/non-scientist divide, making it seem almost inevitable that such controversies will erupt, drawing scientists outside of their narrowly defined epistemic communities and into a more “public” seing. This apparent inevitability of public controversy surrounding scientific knowledge claims may signal an opportunity for the historian, sociologist, or philosopher of science to learn something about the nature of science. Accordingly, this issue of Spontaneous Generations is dedicated to studying public controversies over science in the hopes of learning a little more about the nature of (and possibilities for) modern scientific practice, existing as it does within a social and political context full of variegated peoples, disputes, agendas, and institutions.

What the Public Thinks It Knows About Science

EMBO [European Molecular Biology Organization] Reports, 2003

Popular culture probably does more than formal science education to shape most people’s understanding of science and scientists. It is more pervasive, more eye-catching, and (with rare exceptions) more memorable. No genetics textbook can hope to complete with Jurassic Park, and no lecture on biophysics can match the sight of Dr. Frankenstein pulling lighting down from the stormy sky to animate his creature. What messages about science, then, is the public likely to draw from popular culture? This essay discusses five, but there are naturally many others. Science is complex and multi-faceted, and so is popular culture’s portrayal of it.