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. ABSTRACT 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.

[1]  J. Osborne,et al.  Science education in an age of misinformation , 2023, Science Education.

[2]  J. Osborne,et al.  Science, misinformation, and the role of education , 2022, Science.

[3]  N. Nadkarni,et al.  Providing Public Engagement Training to Build Connections Between the Community and Research Ethics Professionals: A Pilot Project , 2022, Journal of empirical research on human research ethics : JERHRE.

[4]  Hollie Smith,et al.  Making science communication inclusive: an exploratory study of choices, challenges and change mechanisms in the United States from an emerging movement , 2022, Journal of Science Communication.

[5]  N. Nadkarni,et al.  Prevalence of discourse on public engagement with science in ecology literature , 2022, Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment.

[6]  Virginia L. Shepherd,et al.  A Survey of STEM Outreach Programs During the COVID-19 Pandemic , 2021, The Journal of STEM Outreach.

[7]  P. Weingart,et al.  Public engagement with science—Origins, motives and impact in academic literature and science policy , 2021, PloS one.

[8]  N. Nadkarni,et al.  Scaling training to support scientists to engage with the public in non-traditional venues , 2021, Journal of Science Communication.

[9]  T. Padma.  How COVID changed schools outreach , 2021, Nature.

[10]  M. L. Bonatelli,et al.  Going Online in Pandemic Time: A DivulgaMicro Workshop Experience† , 2021, Journal of microbiology & biology education.

[11]  Roderik Rekker.  The nature and origins of political polarization over science , 2021, Public understanding of science.

[12]  J. Slattery,et al.  Science engagement with faith communities: respecting identity, culture and worldview , 2021 .

[13]  A. Bredenoord,et al.  From deficit to dialogue in science communication , 2020, EMBO reports.

[14]  D. Allchin,et al.  Reconceptualizing nature‐of‐science education in the age of social media , 2020 .

[15]  A. Phillips,et al.  A Scientist’s Guide for Engaging in Policy in the United States , 2020, Frontiers in Marine Science.

[16]  Melissa C. Márquez,et al.  Science Communication in Multiple Languages Is Critical to Its Effectiveness , 2020, Frontiers in Communication.

[17]  L. Vetrugno,et al.  Infodemic and the spread of fake news in the COVID-19-era , 2020, European journal of emergency medicine : official journal of the European Society for Emergency Medicine.

[18]  Kathleen M. Rose,et al.  Scientists’ incentives and attitudes toward public communication , 2020, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[19]  John H. Evans,et al.  Science, Values, and Science Communication: Competencies for Pushing Beyond the Deficit Model , 2019, Science Communication.

[20]  PISA 2018 Assessment and Analytical Framework , 2019, PISA.

[21]  L. M. Oliveira,et al.  DivulgaMicro : A Brazilian Initiative To Empower Early-Career Scientists with Science Communication Skills† , 2019, Journal of microbiology & biology education.

[22]  A. Barać,et al.  The Convergent Effect of International Collaboration between Young Leaders of Two Global Societies: Strengthening Microbiology Education and Training Practices Worldwide , 2019, Journal of microbiology & biology education.

[23]  N. Nadkarni,et al.  Beyond the Deficit Model: The Ambassador Approach to Public Engagement , 2019, BioScience.

[24]  Bryan M. Dewsbury,et al.  Using a Logic Model to Direct Backward Design of Curriculum† , 2018, Journal of microbiology & biology education.

[25]  Anthony Dudo,et al.  Understanding Scientists’ Willingness to Engage , 2018, Science Communication.

[26]  Yue-Dian Hsu,et al.  A study on the legitimate requirements for Administrative Due Process of the deliberation to the Curriculum Guidelines of 12-year Basic Education , 2018 .

[27]  Andrew M. Petzold,et al.  The art of talking about science: beginning to teach physiology students how to communicate with nonscientists. , 2018, Advances in physiology education.

[28]  Ze Wang,et al.  Decoding Science: Development and Evaluation of a Science Communication Training Program Using a Triangulated Framework , 2018 .

[29]  Emily Dawson.  Reimagining publics and (non) participation: Exploring exclusion from science communication through the experiences of low-income, minority ethnic groups , 2018, Public understanding of science.

[30]  J. Besley,et al.  Two-way communication between scientists and the public: a view from science communication trainers in North America , 2017 .

[31]  Gili Marbach-Ad,et al.  Enhancing Scientific Literacy in the Undergraduate Cell Biology Laboratory Classroom† , 2016, Journal of microbiology & biology education.

[32]  P. Hunter.  The communications gap between scientists and public , 2016 .

[33]  Catherine E. Snow,et al.  Science Literacy: Concepts, Contexts, and Consequences , 2016 .

[34]  Daniel Pham,et al.  Public engagement is key for the future of science research , 2016, npj Science of Learning.

[35]  Sara K. Yeo,et al.  The lure of rationality: Why does the deficit model persist in science communication? , 2016, Public understanding of science.

[36]  J. Besley,et al.  Scientists’ Prioritization of Communication Objectives for Public Engagement , 2016, PloS one.

[37]  J. Karczewska-Golec.  115-year-old society knows how to reach young scientists: ASM Young Ambassador Program. , 2015, New Biotechnology.

[38]  Vincent R. Racaniello,et al.  Scientists: Engage the Public! , 2015, mBio.

[39]  John C. Besley,et al.  What do scientists think about the public and does it matter to their online engagement , 2015 .

[40]  Megan Bang,et al.  The cultural side of science communication , 2014, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[41]  Emily Dawson.  Reframing social exclusion from science communication: Moving away from 'barriers' towards a more complex perspective , 2014 .

[42]  Johanna Varner,et al.  Scientific Outreach: Toward Effective Public Engagement with Biological Science , 2014 .

[43]  Sarah C. Klain,et al.  A More Social Science: Barriers and Incentives for Scientists Engaging in Policy , 2014 .

[44]  Karen Bultitude,et al.  Science festivals: do they succeed in reaching beyond the 'already engaged'? , 2014 .

[45]  Lawrence Steinman,et al.  Science Communication to the General Public: Why We Need to Teach Undergraduate and Graduate Students this Skill as Part of Their Formal Scientific Training. , 2013, Journal of undergraduate neuroscience education : JUNE : a publication of FUN, Faculty for Undergraduate Neuroscience.

[46]  Magali Michaut,et al.  Explain Bioinformatics to Your Grandmother! , 2013, PLoS Comput. Biol..

[47]  Matthew C. Nisbet,et al.  How scientists view the public, the media and the political process , 2013, Public understanding of science.

[48]  Johanna Krontiris-Litowitz,et al.  Using Primary Literature to Teach Science Literacy to Introductory Biology Students , 2013, Journal of microbiology & biology education.

[49]  David A. Gillam,et al.  A Framework for K-12 Science Education: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas , 2012 .

[50]  Christopher R. Fetsch,et al.  Training scientists in a science center improves science communication to the public. , 2012, Advances in physiology education.

[51]  D. Kahan.  Fixing the communications failure , 2010, Nature.

[52]  Annelise Carleton-Hug,et al.  Challenges and opportunities for evaluating environmental education programs. , 2010, Evaluation and program planning.

[53]  Molly Phipps,et al.  Research Trends and Findings From a Decade (1997–2007) of Research on Informal Science Education and Free-Choice Science Learning , 2010 .

[54]  Sarah R. Davies,et al.  Constructing Communication , 2008 .

[55]  Philip Poronnik,et al.  Using explicit teaching to improve how bioscience students write to the lay public. , 2007, Advances in physiology education.

[56]  A. Leshner,et al.  Public Engagement with Science , 2003, Science.

[57]  渋江 靖弘,et al.  Science for All Americans , 1990 .

[58]  Peter J. Fensham,et al.  Science for all: A reflective essay , 1985 .