Publications

This book on philosophy of science and public policy provides a clear introduction to the basics of philosophy of science — scientific methodology, evidence types, and values in science. However, it falls short as an introduction to philosophy of public policy. The review contends that philosophy of public policy comprises two subdisciplines: philosophy of science and political philosophy. The book notably lacks engagement with many key figures in both areas, including Nancy Cartwright and Jonathan Wolff, and lacks treatment of evidence-based policy literature. The book functions adequately as an introductory philosophy of science text but inadequately addresses the unique problematics of evidence-informed policymaking.

The United States population reports significant hesitance to consume GMOs. This article examines whether visual food cues can change attitudes, induce attitude ambivalence, and alter intentions to avoid purchasing GMOs. In a between-subjects experiment that varied the imagery cue (positive vs. coactive vs. no cue) accompanying GMO information, participants were randomly assigned to view a news-style article about GMO foods. Overall, positive visual food cues decreased potential ambivalence, resulting in lower felt ambivalence and lower likelihood to avoid GMOs. However, skeptics and uncertain individuals were not significantly affected by visual food cues. Implications and future directions are discussed.

Different commentators are often invited in the media in order to discuss medical and health-related advances, such as the deployment of new vaccines or prevention tests. How do the expertise and opinions of such intermediaries affect public trust towards them? Do these factors also influence the public beliefs and decisions regarding those medical advances? We presented to 1984 French participants new (fictitious) medical tools that have been recently made available and commented on by individuals of different degrees of expertise and having distinct opinions. The results indicate that both factors significantly influenced participants' trust in the commentator's message. The commentator's opinion also affected (although to a smaller extent) the public attitude towards the tool and their willingness to use it. Crucially, participants recognized that commentators' assertiveness in expressing their opinions might unduly bias their beliefs. The study highlights the importance of considering both para-verbal and contextual cues in health communication, advocating for strategies to mitigate (or better use) their influence on public trust, beliefs, and decision-making.

Public engagement with science has gained institutional prominence while remaining conceptually fragmented and difficult to operationalise. This review evaluates Public Engagement with Science by Angela Potochnik and Melissa Jacquart as a field-level intervention addressing this condition. The book offers an interdisciplinary, pedagogically grounded framework for understanding, designing, and institutionalising public engagement. More steps regarding its theorization can be made, but the plentitude of strengths lies in conceptual integration and practical design.

The first World Conference of Science Journalists held in Africa was characterised by a conceptual focus on framing science journalism as a social justice practice. This reflection examines how the event interrogated the profession's role within a fractured global order. By foregrounding equity and accountability, WCSJ 2025 served as a renewal moment for the global community, challenging the field to move beyond scientific translation toward critical engagement in an era of systemic crisis.

The PCST Symposium 2025, held in Tokyo from 11–13 November, marked the first PCST-related event hosted in Japan. The symposium explored the strategic development of science communication in Asia, focusing on education and training, as well as public engagement. Navigating challenges such as linguistic diversity, limited professional development, and underrepresentation in Western discourse, Asian science communicators are harnessing new platforms and networks to expand local engagement and international impact through culturally rooted narratives.

Public attitudes toward genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in Kenya remain mixed due to limited knowledge, policy gaps, and cultural factors. Despite the 2020 commercialisation of Bt cotton, perceptions of GM technologies are largely unfavourable. This study surveyed 416 respondents across 14 counties to assess awareness and knowledge levels of GMOs. Results showed 49% support GMOs, 27% are uncertain, and 24% oppose them. Misconceptions persist, with 49.3% citing size and 22.4% recognising labelling as a means of identifying GMOs. Awareness of GMO commercialisation was low (24%), though nearly half correctly identified Bt cotton as an approved GMO, and 32.7% unaware of any institution carrying out GM research. Education significantly influenced acceptance ($\chi^2$ = 68.322, p 0.001). Radio was the most trusted information source (29.3%), and scientists were the most credible (46.4%). The findings underscore the need for targeted public communication strategies to address misinformation and enhance understanding of biosafety and biotechnology in Kenya.

In an age of populism, rising authoritarianism and far-right movements that often go hand-in-hand with questioning of scientific knowledge, science communication is challenged to respond. How to foster dialogue and inclusion oriented interaction with publics and stakeholders when powerful people and institutions deny science, or if interlocutors don't share the assumption that science yields valid knowledge? In this commentary set, researchers of science communication analyse the current challenges and suggest answers from different perspectives, trying to brush against the grain in order to explore inspiring ideas. Their suggestions, in a nutshell: (1) Good science communication without a fundamental change in the platform logics of social media platforms will not be possible, and science communicators should fight for a better digital ecosystem. (2) Science communication that is blind to political power play will not be strong enough for rising the voice of science in a power world. (3) Governments need to invest in a resilient and reliable way of communicating in risk and crisis situations, because otherwise science and science communication lose trust. (4) Science communication as a democratic practice could create opportunities for participation in decision processes in order to support and strengthen democracy. (5) Instead of persuading the denialists of science, science communication could adopt values connected with science and empower people to reach their goals with the help of scientific knowledge and practices. (6) Science communication might embrace the performative power of communication in order to persist in a post-truth world. The commentary set highlights crucial aspects of what we see as a communication challenge for dialogue and inclusion oriented science communication and it aims at opening up discussion and debate.

Generative artificial intelligence (AI) tools are increasingly present in academic writing workflows, and their irresponsible use poses a growing threat to the integrity of scholarly publishing. In this editorial, we highlight the emergence of AI-generated references, or so-called “ghost references”, as a specific concern for JCOM and the wider academic community. We consider how AI tools like large language models can produce convincing yet fictitious citations that might bypass standard peer review. Also, we reaffirm JCOM's policy requiring full disclosure of any generative AI use in preparing manuscripts, remind authors that the responsibility for accuracy and integrity lies with those whose names appear on submissions, and outline our commitment to reject, withdraw, or retract manuscripts found to contain fabricated content at any stage of the publication process. As a journal dedicated to science communication, JCOM maintains a strong focus on the honest and transparent development of knowledge.

With the widespread use of AI-generated content (AIGC) on social media, its potential to spread misinformation poses threats to the public. Although AI disclosure is widely promoted as a transparency measure to prompt critical evaluation, its effectiveness in science communication remains controversial. This study conducted a within-subjects experiment (N = 433) to examine how AI disclosure affects perceived credibility of science communication texts and the moderating roles of readers' negative attitudes towards AI and audience involvement. The experiment manipulated AI disclosure labels and information veracity. The results revealed a truth-falsity crossover effect: AI disclosure significantly reduced the perceived credibility of correct information while unexpectedly increasing the perceived credibility of misinformation. Negative attitudes towards AI significantly moderated these effects, whereas audience involvement exerted only limited influence. These findings highlight the complex and sometimes counterproductive consequences of AI disclosure in science communication and suggest implications for cue-based processing, algorithm aversion, and the design of disclosure mechanisms.