Volume 24 • Issue 01 • 2025

Forensic science has become a standard feature in criminal investigations and trials. However, it can often be a challenge for experts in courtrooms to communicate scientific evidence clearly to lay audiences through verbal expert witness testimony alone. The Evidence Chamber is an interactive experience engaging public audiences with forensic science through a mock trial. This study explores the effectiveness of using comics to support the understanding of forensic science by non-experts. The results suggest comics were effective at aiding the audiences' comprehension of forensic science evidence and in the future comic-based aids could support juries' comprehension of scientific evidence.

Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) greatly attracts the public's interest; thus, this research investigates discussions between experts and members of the public about this new technology on social media. Using computational and manual analysis of X (formerly Twitter) data, we investigated discussion topics, the roles discussants — including both experts and public — play, and the differences between experts' posts and the public's replies. Moreover, we examined the dynamics between the discussants' roles and social media engagement measures. We found that the public is not only actively contributing to the discussion of GenAI on X, but also becoming knowledge co-producers alongside experts in the sphere.

This study explores the subjective relevance and challenges of public engagement (PES) in science communication among professional university communicators based on 29 qualitative interviews in one German federal state. Despite recognizing its value, interviewees reveal significant uncertainties in understanding, objectives, and implementation of PES. They cite barriers such as reliance on scientists and control concerns. Surprisingly, social media is rarely considered for PES, with online engagement seen as difficult. This research highlights the complexities and challenges of PES in practice, emphasizing opportunities for optimized digital science communication strategies and clearer role structures between professionals and researchers to enhance PES.

We conducted an experiment examining public response to scientists' use of different types of humor (satire, anthropomorphism, and a combination of the two) to communicate about AI on Twitter/X. We found that humor led to increased perceptions of humor, measured as increased mirth. Specifically, we found that combining anthropomorphism and satire elicited the highest levels of mirth. Further, reported mirth was positively associated with the perceived likability of the scientist who posted the content. Our findings indicate that mirth mediated the effects of the humor types on publics' perceptions that the scientist on social media was communicating information in an appropriate and legitimate way. Overall, this suggests that scientists can elicit mirth by using combining satire and anthropomorphic humor, which can enhance publics' perceptions of scientists. Importantly, publics' responses to harsh satire were not examined. Caution should be exercised when using satire due to potential backfire effects.

The evolving landscape of science communication highlights a shift from traditional dissemination to participatory engagement. This study explores Dutch citizens' perspectives on science communication, focusing on science capital, public engagement, and communication goals. Using a mixed-methods approach, it combines survey data (“n”=376) with focus group (“n”=66) insights. Findings show increasing public interest in participating in science, though barriers like knowledge gaps persist. Trust-building, engaging adolescents, and integrating science into society were identified as key goals. These insights support the development of the Netherlands' National Centre of Expertise on Science and Society and provide guidance for inclusive, effective science communication practices.

Most public audiences in Germany receive scientific information via a variety of (digital) media; in these contexts, media act as intermediaries of trust in science by providing information that present reasons for public audiences to place their trust in science. To describe this process, the study introduces the term “trust cues”. To identify such content-related trust cues, an explorative qualitative content analysis has been applied to German journalistic, populist, social, and other (non-journalistic) online media (“n” = 158). In total, “n” = 1,329 trust cues were coded. The findings emphasize the diversity of mediated trust, with trust cues being connected to dimensions of trust in science (established: expertise, integrity, benevolence; recently introduced: transparency, dialogue). Through this analysis, the study aims for a better understanding of mediated trust in science. Deriving this finding is crucial since public trust in science is important for individual and collective informed decision-making and crises management.

In recent years there has been an increasing call for new modes of climate change communication. These calls have gone beyond classic consensus-building and fact-sharing to addressing affective dimensions and meaning-making in relation to the climate crisis. In this article we reflect on a proof-of-concept climate change comedy project — “Climate Change is NOT Funny!”. Building on audience and performer insights, we reflect on the effectiveness and affective dimensions of comedy as a climate change communication method, as well as institutional and funding constraints on delivery. Finally, we introduce how we designed our project to go on making an impact beyond the grant's lifespan. By empowering professional comedians to embed new research-informed climate change material into their regular sets, we argue that our approach can amplify the reach of climate communication activities, and in turn provide new forums for individuals to engage with the most pressing aspects of the climate crisis.

HOMEs was a citizen science exploratory project, aimed at investigating the presence of airborne microplastics in people's homes. Participants placed passive samplers in their homes, using low-cost microscopes to see and take pictures of their samples. The methods developed are promising, however there are a number of pitfalls to avoid and key considerations. This practice insight explores successful approaches and identifies barriers and limitations when embedding co-creation and participatory citizen science approaches to a research project. This piece focuses on the methods and engagement with participants, rather than on microplastics findings.

Scientists are increasingly expected to share their research with the public using learner-centered strategies that build trust, such as engaging in relationship-building activities. A growing number of science communication training programs have been developed to address this need but little is known about whether and how scientists value such programs. In this paper we examine scientists' experiences with the STEM Ambassadors Program (STEMAP), a science communication training program that aims to build relationships for open-minded exchange between scientists and the public. We discuss benefits and challenges for scientists when using the STEMAP model for public outreach.

Emma Frances Bloomfield's “Science v. Story: Narrative Strategies for Science Communicators”, presents ways to improve science communication in the face of declining public trust. Bloomfield's work highlights the power of narrative, demonstrating how anti-science movements have effectively leveraged storytelling to popularize their messages. If scientists adopt narrative strategies, they can bridge the gap between the scholarly community and the public and make complex information more accessible and relatable. Bloomfield's approach provides a roadmap for navigating the complexities of science communication in an era where many people are swayed more by personal connection than credibility or facts.

This comprehensive compilation of a wide variety of science communication scholars investigating science and health journalism, brought together by editors Kim Walsh-Childers and Merryn McKinnon, leaves one with mixed impressions.

 

 

Publisher's note: a Letter by Merryn McKinnon and Kim Walsh-Childers has been published on September 5th 2025 and is available here

 

This review of “Queer as Folklore” examines how cultural narratives and queer identity intersect to reshape our understanding of science communication. By analyzing myths, legends, and personal stories, the book illustrates how folklore operates as a form of “data storytelling”, capturing accounts of resilience, identity, and exclusion. It critiques the traditional boundaries between scientific knowledge and cultural storytelling, arguing that stories of figures like witches, vampires, and mermaids contain meaningful lessons about survival and social change. The book demonstrates how adopting a queer lens can expose power imbalances and foster inclusive communication, encouraging deeper public engagement with science.

The Science Media Interface explores how scientists and their institutions orient their research and publication criteria and processes towards those of journalists and media organizations as a way to gain public attention. The editors present an impressive range of methods, from bibliometrics, an adaptation of the Delphi method, ethnography, mixed-methods analysis, and the path analysis method.

This review examines “Cultivating Futures Thinking in Museums”, a new collection of case studies edited by Kristen Alford. The book presents a diverse range of global examples — from the Museum of the Future in Dubai to the District Six Museum in Cape Town — illustrating how museums can cultivate “futures literacy” among visitors and communities. The anthology highlights creative approaches to navigating uncertainty, climate challenges, and social inequities, positioning museums as active participants in shaping collective futures. Particularly relevant for science communication audiences, the book showcases how science centers and museums are evolving beyond traditional roles, engaging in meaningful dialogue, and fostering proactive approaches to global challenges.

`AI and Common Sense: Ambitions and Frictions' critically examines the claim of AI with common sense, a notion often assumed in human intelligence but highly debated in machine learning. The book offers a multifaceted exploration, questioning whether common sense is essential for AI and its broader implications for society and the future of technology. Spanning technical, philosophical, and social perspectives, it invites readers to rethink common sense and its role in shaping future AI conversations in society.