Filter by keyword: Public engagement with science and technology

The medical arena often encounters ‘taboo’ topics. These appear especially prevalent in women's health conditions, such as menstruation and menopause. Taboos are exacerbated by medical uncertainty, complex jargon, and patients' misunderstanding of the human anatomy — impacting patients' ability to actively participate in a shared decision-making process with their doctor. In this commentary, we look at one example of a medical procedure where taboo topics pose a number of challenges in doctor-patient communication — hysterectomy. We explore whether science communication can address these challenges, as well as contribute and collaborate in other medical scenarios, thereby benefiting both disciplines, and ultimately, patients.

From a strategic communication perspective, for any communication to be effective, it must be audience-centered, with content and delivery channels that are relevant to its intended target. When trying to reach culturally specific communities or other groups that are not otherwise connected with science research, it is crucial to partner with community members to co-create content through media that is appealing and culturally competent. This commentary considers some examples including storytelling through ‘fotonovelas’ and radio stories, community drama and serious games.

Despite Mexico has coasts in the Pacific and Atlantic oceans, people's connection towards the sea and marine environments is quite poor. Our commentary focuses on Mexico's coral reefs, relevant tropical ecosystems to human and oceanic welfare, and it emerges from the experience of the production of an itinerant coral reefs exhibit in Mexico, committed to the conservation and awareness of this threatened habitat. The UN Decade of Ocean Science for Sustainable Development starts in 2021 and represents an opportunity to increase initiatives for public communication of science on marine and oceanic issues in Mexico and the world.

This article describes an example of science engagement striving for social justice by invigorating neglected spaces. The pop-up science centre “Knowledge◦Room“ in Vienna encourages learning, participation and engagement and provides accessibility to different groups regardless of their background. Based on a case-study of a bottom-up event at the Knowledge◦Room, we show how science communication can create a trust-based connection with disadvantaged groups in society and inspire their curiosity in science. We argue that science communication can be used as a tool for advancing social justice in the wider sense and facilitate encounters between diverse groups within society.

Most adults in the U.S. and worldwide claim a religious affiliation. As an element of identity and worldview, faith informs many individuals' views of science, technology, and society at large. Engagement with faith communities and religious leaders about science can improve public perceptions and trust of scientists, advance evidence-based policy, and improve diversity, equity and inclusion in science fields. This commentary outlines examples and suggests guiding principles for science engagement with faith communities.

‘Escape rooms’ are a recent cultural phenomena, whereby a group of ‘players’, often friends or colleagues, are ‘locked’ in a room and must solve a series of clues, puzzles, or mysteries in order to ‘escape’. Escape rooms are increasingly appearing in a range of settings, including science centres and museums, libraries and university programmes, but what role can an escape room play in science communication? In this commentary, we explore the emerging literature on escape rooms as well as thoughts from a small number of escape room creators in the U.S. and U.K.

Twelve researchers from 11 countries used autoethnographic techniques, keeping diaries over 10 weeks of the COVID-19 crisis, to observe and reflect on changes in the role and cultural authority of science during important stages of viral activity and government action in their respective countries. We followed arguments, discussions and ideas generated by mass and social media about science and scientific expertise, observed patterns and shifts in narratives, and made international comparisons. During regular meetings via video conference, the participating researchers discussed theoretical approaches and our joint methodology for reflecting on our observations. This project is informed by social representations theory, agenda-setting, and frames of meaning associated with the rise and fall of expertise and trust. This paper presents our observations and reflections on the role and authority of science in our countries from March 10 to May 31, 2020. This is the first stage of a longer-term project that aims to identify, analyse and compare changes in science-society relationships over the course of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic.

This commentary uses a case study of Uganda and the country's attempts to adopt genetically modified organisms (GMOs) to demonstrate how activists have become communicators of scientific knowledge in the digital age. The digital age allows activists to share their information and collaborate with those who can push their agenda. I argue that anti-GMO activists have positioned themselves as influencers in a debate where weight-of-scientific evidence seems to have been overshadowed by perceptions, largely driven by socio-democratic considerations that require participation in technological uptake.

This paper identifies the diverse ways in which participants engage with science, through the same citizen science project. Using multiple data sources, we describe various activities conducted by citizen scientists in an air quality project, and characterize the motivations driving their engagement. Findings reveal several themes, indicative of participants motivations and engagement; worried residents, education and outreach, environmental action, personal interest and opportunistic engagement. The study further illustrates the interconnectivity between science communication and citizen science practices and calls for nurturing this relationship for the mutual advancement of both fields.

In this comment, we focus on the ways power impacts science communication collaborations. Following Fischhoff's suggestion of focusing on internal consultation within science communication activities, we examine the ways such consultation is complicated by existing power structures, which tend to prioritize scientific knowledge over other knowledge forms. This prioritization works in concert with funding structures and with existing cultural and social hierarchies to shape science communication in troubling ways. We discuss several strategies to address problematic power structures. These strategies may reveal and thus mitigate problems in individual collaborations, but these collaborations exist within a larger infrastructure in need of systemic change.