Filter by keyword: Policy-making, communication and governance of science

In this commentary, we examine patterns of attacks against scholars focusing on the case of Germany. Drawing on the responses to open and closed questions in a recent survey of 2,600 German researchers, we identify context- and field-specific patterns of science hostility. While most responding researchers do not experience severe attacks, those engaged in specific fields may be at a higher risk of being threatened. We argue that attacks on researchers may not be perceived as acts of hostility against scientific institutions but rather emerge in the context of controversial topics. By drawing from material of open-ended questions, we provide context of such controversial topics in Germany. Our results suggest that these topics are disputed not only in public forums, but also in academic contexts — and not always appropriately. Such controversies both affect and transcend higher education institutions, as attacks can also originate from researchers themselves. Furthermore, our material suggests that scholars are concerned about how expertise is, or should be, represented in these contexts, and about how deliberation on these topics on campus can be upheld.

This commentary examines the tension between the recent consolidation of academic freedom as a human right in international and Inter-American law and its systematic erosion under authoritarian regimes, using Venezuela as a paradigmatic case. Drawing on General Comment No. 13, the Inter-American Principles on Academic Freedom and University Autonomy, and an operational framework developed in regional monitoring, it analyses how Venezuelan state policies, legal and institutional engineering, criminalisation and repression, economic strangulation and judicial interference, undermine core attributes of academic freedom CESCR1999,IACHR2021a. It shows how these measures reshape the ecosystem of science communication by narrowing who can speak, what can be researched and how knowledge circulates in society. The commentary concludes by identifying gaps in regional and international protection, highlighting comparative data from the Academic Freedom Index, and proposing pathways to strengthen academic-freedom safeguards and democratic science communication in the Americas.

This paper analyses the communication activities conducted within the framework of research projects funded under Horizon 2020, with more than €1M in funding, and led by Portuguese or Polish institutions. A total of 221 initiatives (68 Poland-led and 153 Portugal-led) are examined. The primary finding is that the majority of projects do not engage in communication activities. Web presence is observed in 41.1% of Poland-led projects and 41.8% of Portugal-led projects. In turn, social media presence is more common among Portugal-led (44.4%) than among Poland-led (29%) initiatives. Outreach activities are not very prominent, with a frequency of 28.1% and 23.5%, respectively. These figures improve slightly to moderately when controlling for projects' end date. Binary logistic regression analyses were conducted to test the influence of funding on communication activities. The relationship is positive across the board and reveals a potential effect, although it is statistically significant only for Portugal-led projects. These findings invite us to reconsider `legal obligation' to communicate the project and its outcomes that has become the norm in most grant funding, and provide a more nuanced understanding of the differences between `developed' and `developing' science communication landscapes.

Guidance for researchers seeking to contribute science to the policymaking process typically focuses on technical training, such as how to write op-eds and policy briefs. An under-discussed but vital additional consideration is how to navigate the ethical challenges that arise at the intersection of research and policymaking. In their edited volume, Epstein and Kaplan feature case studies grounded in research experience to identify, describe, and offer guidance on how researchers and policymakers can bridge the science-policy gap in an effective and ethical way.

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.

We live in bewildering times. Unusual politicians and political movements are rising to the fore, geopolitical maps are being redrawn, old certainties are collapsing, and knowledge — both good and bad — is flowing differently from ever before. Based on the belief that effective communication of science requires understanding of our communication landscape, in this article I offer a brief `technological tectonics' of our current communication landscape, exploring how shifts in communication technologies have made certain politics and certain flows of knowledge possible. I then offer three paths for action — in reflection, practice and advocacy — for those interested in the communication of science.

I was invited by my colleagues, Leßmöllmann and Medvecky, to participate in a set of commentaries on the role of science communication in the post-truth era, which will be published in the Journal of Science Communication. My reflection will focus on how reshaping and promoting official or governmental science communication could help minimise the impact of misinformation on science-related issues, such as climate change, vaccines and artificial intelligence, among others, in the public sphere. Although European and Western governments have increasingly embraced the integration of science communication as a structural and ethical component of their public information strategies, these efforts have mainly centred on fostering dissemination practices led by individual researchers or research teams. However, this approach often overlooks the equally critical role of institutional communication systems, which are incapable of translating scientific knowledge into clear, accessible and actionable information for the broader public. This omission becomes particularly salient during crises when citizens actively seek guidance grounded in scientific evidence and are frequently met with institutional silence, ambiguity or poorly coordinated messaging.

Rapid and significant developments in the science of Autism Spectrum Disorders (ASDs) have provoked serious social and ethical concerns as well as positive influences worldwide. This study created a social agenda containing 21 important issues regarding the relationship between ASDs and society and the development of the science of ASDs. The agenda was constructed with the input of a variety of Japanese people who were provided with scientific ASD information and engaged in discussions regarding ASDs. First, opinions were sought via a questionnaire from the attendees of six science café sessions. Then, additional important issues were put forward by attendees of a larger dialogue session regarding the relationship between ASDs and society, again via a questionnaire. The agenda covered a wide range of issues, including information regarding ASDs, people’s understanding of ASDs, social support, education, the difference between ASD characteristics and individuality, ASD research, diagnosis, and social attitudes.

This introduction presents the essays belonging to the JCOM special issue on User-led and peer-to-peer science. It also draws a first map of the main problems we need to investigate when we face this new and emerging phenomenon. Web tools are enacting and facilitating new ways for lay people to interact with scientists or to cooperate with each other, but cultural and political changes are also at play. What happens to expertise, knowledge production and relations between scientific institutions and society when lay people or non-scientists go online and engage in scientific activities? From science blogging and social networks to garage biology and open tools for user-led research, P2P science challenges many assumptions about public participation in scientific knowledge production. And it calls for a radical and perhaps new kind of openness of scientific practices towards society.

From contributions of astronomy data and DNA sequences to disease treatment research, scientific activity by non-scientists is a real and emergent phenomenon, and raising policy questions. This involvement in science can be understood as an issue of access to publications, code, and data that facilitates public engagement in the research process, thus appropriate policy to support the associated welfare enhancing benefits is essential. Current legal barriers to citizen participation can be alleviated by scientists’ use of the “Reproducible Research Standard,” thus making the literature, data, and code associated with scientific results accessible. The enterprise of science is undergoing deep and fundamental changes, particularly in how scientists obtain results and share their work: the promise of open research dissemination held by the Internet is gradually being fulfilled by scientists. Contributions to science from beyond the ivory tower are forcing a rethinking of traditional models of knowledge generation, evaluation, and communication. The notion of a scientific “peer” is blurred with the advent of lay contributions to science raising questions regarding the concepts of peer-review and recognition. New collaborative models are emerging around both open scientific software and the generation of scientific discoveries that bear a similarity to open innovation models in other settings. Public engagement in science can be understood as an issue of access to knowledge for public involvement in the research process, facilitated by appropriate policy to support the welfare enhancing benefits deriving from citizen-science.