Filter by keyword: Public perception of science and technology

In this essay, we draw on the existing literature to discuss the roles for emotions in science communication. There is a widespread perception that emotions are detrimental to quality, particularly as a threat to the objectivity of science. This paper challenges this view by discussing the potential positive and negative effects of emotions on both the producers and recipients of science communication. Additionally, we outline the motivational and heuristic functions of emotions. Finally, we consider the place and roles for emotions in different models of science communication. The essay aims to support both producers and recipients of science communication in reflecting on their own emotions and the emotions of their counterpart.

An increasing number of government science organizations are inserting humour into their informational messages on social media. However, since individuals may expect government agencies to communicate in a more formal and traditional manner, does the use of humour influence perceptions of the organization? This study examines how humorous messages regarding three different wildlife science issues (climate change, human-wildlife interaction, and human-caused wildfires) influences perceived expertise, trustworthiness, and likability through parallel mediators, expectancy violation magnitude and the valence of that violation. Overall, results showed a significant, negative effect of humour on perceptions of the organization through the two mediators. However, these results varied slightly across issues. Government science organizations should be wary of making abrupt shifts in their tone on social media to avoid unpleasantly surprising their audiences in these spaces. Implications for future research regarding science humour and social media practice are discussed.

Hostility towards science has emerged as a significant challenge in contemporary science communication, particularly in increasingly politicised and digitally mediated public environments. Scholars across diverse disciplines are confronted with harassment, delegitimisation, political interference, disinformation, and personal attacks, especially when engaging in public communication. This editorial introduces the JCOM commentary set “Scholars Under Attack” and situates hostility towards science within broader transformations of media ecosystems, political polarisation, and contested epistemic authority. The article argues that current debates remain conceptually fragmented and empirically underdeveloped, with limited comparative and longitudinal evidence regarding the scope, forms, and consequences of hostility directed at researchers. To address these gaps, the editorial proposes a working definition of hostility towards science as practices, discourses, and actions that undermine the authority, credibility, or integrity of scientific actors, knowledge, and institutions in politicised public arenas. The commentary set brings together interdisciplinary and international perspectives from Europe, the Americas, Africa, and Australia, highlighting how experiences of hostility vary across political systems, institutional contexts, disciplines, and social identities. The contributions examine online harassment, gendered hostility, misinformation, academic freedom, institutional shortcomings, and the paradoxical dynamics of visibility in digital communication. Collectively, they emphasise the need for more systematic empirical research, stronger institutional support structures, and nuanced conceptual approaches that distinguish hostility from legitimate critique while recognising the democratic importance of public science communication.

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 study examines how information sources are indirectly related to support for quantum science. Results from a national survey of quantum science aware publics in the United States (n = 919) showed that TV news use was negatively associated with interest and knowledge and positively associated with benefit and risk perceptions. By contrast, print/online media use and social media use were positively associated with interest and knowledge. Social media use was also positively associated with risk perception. Notably, benefit perception had the strongest association with support for quantum science. These findings suggest complex relationships between media use and attitudes toward quantum science.

Recent technological advancements have expanded our capacity to observe, decode, and modulate human brain activity. As these brain information (BI) technologies evolve, it becomes increasingly important to address relevant ethical, legal, and social issues and to communicate them effectively to the public. However, meaningful dialogue has been hindered by a limited understanding of how attitudes toward BI technologies differ between experts and the public. To address this gap, we examined the perspectives of both groups through surveys involving neuroscientists (N = 108) and non-expert citizens (N = 2000). Our findings indicate that, while both parties are concerned about data governance, non-expert citizens also expressed interest in threats to psychological continuity, whereas neuroscientists prioritize scientific content and the risks of stigmatization. These differences underscore the importance of framing discourse on BI applications to encompass both concerns raised by two prominent stakeholders, fostering constructive exchanges grounded in mutual understanding.

News media play a crucial role in communicating climate change, yet journalistic norms and commercial considerations pose challenges. Still, coverage is increasingly prioritised, even though, according to international research, audience interest remains limited. Through the lens of news media logic, this article examines whether this trend is reflected in journalistic practice by illustrating how commercial and normative logic shapes Danish climate journalists' perceptions of climate change in a country with high climate concerns. The findings show that journalists face challenges related to commercial logic, particularly regarding the complexity of the issue and its perceived lack of newsworthiness. Indeed, climate change's low news value has led to its perception as `boring' in many newsrooms. Although normative logic, where public opinion formation takes precedence over commercial considerations, dominates among climate journalists and is gaining broader acceptance, it cannot be concluded that climate journalism is moving in a normative direction.

We present Science & Cinema, a science communication format combining a cinematic atmosphere with scientific expertise. Through examining sequences from various movies, the format encourages audiences to critically reflect on representations of scientific topics in popular culture. The findings from pre- and post-event questionnaires and a recorded focus group session reveal that the format appeals to a range of audience demographics, entertains, creates interest, and fosters understanding and reflection. The format makes the power of images in shaping perceptions explicit and potentially contributes to a better understanding of how meaning-making occurs when scientific topics are strongly present in societal discourses.

This article reflects on #OneDOST4U, a unifying communication handle adopted by the Republic of the Philippines’ Department of Science and Technology (DOST) across multiple media vehicles. The campaign sought to strengthen a single institutional identity while inviting participation and feedback from diverse audiences, such as researchers, educators, local governments, industry partners, and communities. Through focus group discussions with stakeholders from 11 agency projects, we explored how publics interpreted and engaged with the campaign. Using qualitative thematic analysis, we identified recurring themes of value-in-use, dialogic engagement, and communal identity. Findings illustrate how institutional branding tools operate as boundary objects: recognisable symbols that different groups interpret in context while contributing to a shared sense of meaning. For science communication practice, #OneDOST4Udemonstrates that unifying institutional campaigns are most effective when treated as participatory boundary objects—tools that allow diverse stakeholders to negotiate meaning, build trust, and co-create the public value of science.