What's next for science communication? Promising directions and lingering distractions.

In this essay, we review research from the social sciences on how the public makes sense of and participates in societal decisions about science and technology. We specifically highlight the role of the media and public communication in this process, challenging the still dominant assumption that science literacy is both the problem and the solution to societal conflicts. After reviewing the cases of evolution, climate change, food biotechnology, and nanotechnology, we offer a set of detailed recommendations for improved public engagement efforts on the part of scientists and their organizations. We emphasize the need for science communication initiatives that are guided by careful formative research; that span a diversity of media platforms and audiences; and that facilitate conversations with the public that recognize, respect, and incorporate differences in knowledge, values, perspectives, and goals.

[1]  Robert M. Gerst.  The risks and advantages of framing science. , 2007, Science.

[2]  J. Besley,et al.  Interpersonal Discussion Following Citizen Engagement About Nanotechnology , 2008 .

[3]  D. Mark,et al.  Selling Science: How the Press Covers Science and Technology , 1995 .

[4]  Claire Marris,et al.  Public views on GMOs: deconstructing the myths , 2001 .

[5]  Matthew C. Nisbet,et al.  A Two-Step Flow of Influence? , 2009 .

[6]  M. Bauer.  Survey research and the public understanding of science , 2008 .

[7]  M. Boykoff,et al.  Balance as bias: global warming and the US prestige press☆ , 2004 .

[8]  Matthew C. Nisbet,et al.  Framing Science: A New Paradigm in Public Engagement , 2009 .

[9]  Stephen B. Withey,et al.  Public Opinion about Science and Scientists , 1959 .

[10]  Matthew C. Nisbet,et al.  Understanding citizen perceptions of science controversy: bridging the ethnographic—survey research divide , 2007 .

[11]  Jay B Labov,et al.  Understanding our audiences: the design and evolution of science, evolution, and creationism. , 2008, CBE life sciences education.

[12]  T. C. Nesbitt,et al.  The Public, the Media and Agricultural Biotechnology , 2007 .

[13]  Shirley S. Ho,et al.  Effects of Value Predispositions, Mass Media Use, and Knowledge on Public Attitudes Toward Embryonic Stem Cell Research , 2008 .

[14]  J. Besley,et al.  Framing Justice: Using the Concept of Procedural Justice to Advance Political Communication Research , 2005 .

[15]  Chris Mooney,et al.  Framing Science , 2007, Science.

[16]  Bruce V. Lewenstein,et al.  Religiosity as a perceptual filter: examining processes of opinion formation about nanotechnology , 2009 .

[17]  Aaron M. McCright,et al.  Defeating Kyoto: The conservative movement's impact on U.S. climate change policy , 2003 .

[18]  Biotechnology in Switzerland , 2002 .

[19]  Dominique Brossard,et al.  Framing Science , 2003 .

[20]  Matthew C. Nisbet,et al.  Exploring the Roots of Public Participation in the Controversy Over Embryonic Stem Cell Research and Cloning , 2006 .

[21]  Ronald E. Doel,et al.  :The Honest Broker: Making Sense of Science in Policy and Politics , 2008 .

[22]  David N. Pellow.  Break Through: From the Death of Environmentalism to the Politics of Possibility , 2008 .

[23]  D. N. Michael.  THE BEGINNING OF THE SPACE AGE AND AMERICAN PUBLIC OPINION , 1960 .

[24]  Joseph N. Cappella,et al.  Framing Public Discussion of Gay Civil Unions , 2005 .

[25]  Matthew C. Nisbet,et al.  The Competition for Worldviews: Values, Information, and Public Support for Stem Cell Research , 2005 .

[26]  Stephen Hilgartner,et al.  The Dominant View of Popularization: Conceptual Problems, Political Uses , 1990 .

[27]  M. Bucchi,et al.  Handbook of Public Communication of Science and Technology , 2008 .

[28]  D. Mckie,et al.  Talking Politics , 1975, The Lancet.

[29]  K. Montgomery.  Generation Digital: Politics, Commerce, and Childhood in the Age of the Internet , 2007 .

[30]  Brian Wynne,et al.  Misunderstood misunderstanding: social identities and public uptake of science , 1992 .

[31]  Amy M. Hightower,et al.  Science and Engineering Indicators , 1993 .

[32]  Ted Nordhaus,et al.  Break Through: From the Death of Environmentalism to the Politics of Possibility , 2007 .

[33]  Dietram A. Scheufele,et al.  Framing as a theory of media effects , 1999 .

[34]  Matthew C. Nisbet,et al.  Communicating Climate Change: Why Frames Matter for Public Engagement , 2009 .

[35]  Erik C. Nisbet,et al.  Evolution and intelligent design: Understanding public opinion , 2005 .

[36]  Matthew C. Nisbet,et al.  Attention Cycles and Frames in the Plant Biotechnology Debate , 2006 .

[37]  Maria Powell,et al.  Building citizen capacities for participation in nanotechnology decision-making: the democratic virtues of the consensus Conference model , 2008 .

[38]  Geoff Brumfiel,et al.  Science journalism: Supplanting the old media? , 2009, Nature.

[39]  M. M. Ferree,et al.  Shaping Abortion Discourse: Democracy and the Public Sphere in Germany and the United States , 2002 .

[40]  Lauren Feldman,et al.  The news about comedy , 2007 .

[41]  Sharon Dunwoody,et al.  Scientists worry about some risks more than the public. , 2007, Nature nanotechnology.

[42]  Dominique Brossard,et al.  Deference to Scientific Authority Among a Low Information Public: Understanding U.S. Opinion on Agricultural Biotechnology , 2006 .

[43]  Francisco J. Ayala,et al.  Science, evolution, and creationism , 2008, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[44]  Michel Claessens,et al.  Communicating Science in Social Contexts , 2008 .

[45]  W. Gamson,et al.  Media Discourse and Public Opinion on Nuclear Power: A Constructionist Approach , 1989, American Journal of Sociology.

[46]  Daniel M. Merkle.  THE POLLS—REVIEWTHE NATIONAL ISSUES CONVENTION DELIBERATIVE POLL , 1996 .

[47]  Dietram A. Scheufele,et al.  The future of public engagement , 2007 .

[48]  P. J. Tichenor,et al.  MASS MEDIA FLOW AND DIFFERENTIAL GROWTH IN KNOWLEDGE , 1970 .

[49]  Brian Wynne,et al.  Public Engagement as a Means of Restoring Public Trust in Science – Hitting the Notes, but Missing the Music? , 2006, Public Health Genomics.

[50]  Patrick Sturgis,et al.  Science knowledge and attitudes across cultures: a meta-analysis , 2008 .

[51]  Richard Elliott,et al.  Communicating Biological Sciences: Ethical and Metaphorical Dimensions , 2009 .

[52]  R. Dunlap,et al.  A Widening Gap: Republican and Democratic Views on Climate Change , 2008 .

[53]  Dietram A. Scheufele,et al.  Framing, Agenda Setting, and Priming: The Evolution of Three Media Effects Models , 2007 .

[54]  Gerald M. Kosicki,et al.  Framing analysis: An approach to news discourse , 1993 .

[55]  Dietram A. Scheufele,et al.  Messages and heuristics: How audiences form attitudes about emerging technologies , 2006 .

[56]  P. Lazarsfeld,et al.  The People's Choice: How the Voter Makes Up His Mind in a Presidential Campaign , 1968 .

[57]  Lauren Feldman,et al.  Late-Night Comedy as a Gateway to Traditional News: An Analysis of Time Trends in News Attention Among Late-Night Comedy Viewers During the 2004 Presidential Primaries , 2008 .

[58]  E. Carlson.  :Designs on Nature: Science and Democracy in Europe and the United States , 2008 .

[59]  Earle M Holland,et al.  The Risks and Advantages of Framing Science , 2007, Science.

[60]  B. Wynne,et al.  Misunderstanding science? : the public reconstruction of science and technology , 1996 .

[61]  Dietram A. Scheufele,et al.  Community, Communication, and Participation: The Role of Mass Media and Interpersonal Discussion in Local Political Participation , 1999 .

[62]  Martin W. Bauer,et al.  What can we learn from 25 years of PUS survey research? Liberating and expanding the agenda , 2007 .

[63]  Kajsa E. Dalrymple,et al.  Religious beliefs and public attitudes toward nanotechnology in Europe and the United States. , 2009, Nature nanotechnology.

[64]  Bruce V. Lewenstein,et al.  Biotechnology and the American Media , 2002 .

[65]  Martin W. Bauer,et al.  Biotechnology in the public sphere: a European sourcebook. , 1998 .

[66]  Donghong Cheng.  Communicating science in social contexts : new models, new practices , 2008 .

[67]  Claire Marris,et al.  Public Perceptions of Agricultural Biotechnologies in Europe: Report of the PABE project funded by the European Commission, DG Research (contract number: FAIR CT98-3844 (DG12 - SSMI) , 2001 .

[68]  David H. Guston,et al.  Scientists Not Immune to Partisanship , 2009, Science.