Filter by keyword: Science and policy-making

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.

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.

Is how science is conducted legitimate? Are scientists trustworthy? Whether the public answers “yes” to these questions is critical for science communicators. We explore how social factors affect public perceptions of the practice of science, and then test how those beliefs relate to views about how scientists engage with the public and policy making. Our results show that political ideology and religiosity affect these views. However, more importantly, respondents' concerns about the integrity of the scientific process are the strongest predictor of views about scientists' behavior, providing a focus area for future communication efforts in support of science-based decision making.

Evaluations are becoming more important in science communication. But both science communication practitioners and researchers are not sufficiently utilizing the potential of evaluations yet. In this essay, we first define four requirements for rigorous evaluations of science communication activities and projects. To substantiate our argument, we take stock of the scientific literature, uncover deficiencies in current evaluation practices and identify potential causes. We conclude with laying out how different actors in the field — including science communication practitioners, professional associations, scientific institutions and funding bodies as well as researchers — can contribute to advancing evaluation practices in science communication as well as research on it.

On April 22, 2019, false rumors regarding the side effects of the polio vaccine quickly spread across various social media platforms, including Facebook, X (formerly known as Twitter), WhatsApp, and YouTube. This rapid spread of misinformation had a detrimental impact on Pakistan's efforts to eradicate polio. This essay sheds lights on two critical aspects related to polio vaccine misinformation on social media in Pakistan. First, it examines the current state of polio vaccine misinformation on social media and finds it a significant threat to public health, resulting in vaccine refusals, erosion of trust in public health institutions, distrust in science, and providing opportunities for anti-vaccination groups and individual advocates to target healthcare workers involved in polio eradication efforts nationwide. Second, it highlights the collaborative initiatives undertaken by relevant government institutions and social media companies, which have proven inadequate in effectively addressing the persistent dissemination of mis/disinformation, particularly on Facebook. Lastly, we suggest Pakistan should adopt a more inclusive approach of engaging all stakeholders, promote independent fact-checking initiatives, and increase health literacy among the target population about the risks and benefits associated with the polio vaccine.

Fossils and Indigenous artefacts are often found by members of the general public. To gauge Australian awareness of heritage laws and willingness to report finds, the Found a Fossil project conducted a survey to understand barriers to reporting heritage material. Results showed enthusiasm to report but confusion over appropriate authorities to contact, lack of transparency by government, and poorly communicated legislation created barriers to heritage reporting. This project represents the first attempt to quantify reporting behaviours of Indigenous artefacts and fossils in Australia and recommends improvements for reporting, protection and communication of Australian heritage items and their historical narratives.

Living Labs foster participatory prototyping and technology testing in “real-life” situations. The literature exhibits a weak approach to Living Labs’ power relations. It is crucial to understand the visual apparatus employed by Living Labs because they model power relations inherent to participation, especially when commercial interests are involved. Some Living Labs’ visual models display indifference towards power imbalances and unquestioned faith in progress, diminishing the space for divergent positions. Living Labs are just the newest manifestation of the fundamental challenges of making ethical participation and technological innovation compatible, given that increased participation may not translate necessarily into novelty.