Science Communication in Conflict – Controversies and Dilemmas of Science Communication

Editor-in-Charge: Marina Joubert; Stellenbosch University (South Africa)

Guest editors: Julia Metag, Florian Wintterlin, Kira Klinger, Pamela Nölleke-Przybylski, Franca Singh, Lena Zils (University of Muenster, Germany)

Science communication is “not as easy as it looks” (Thorp, 2021). Rather than simply transmitting scientific knowledge, contemporary science communication has become a space in which competing expectations, values, interests, and understandings of knowledge are negotiated. It navigates tensions between accuracy and accessibility, neutrality and engagement, scientific uncertainty and demands for clear guidance, as well as between public dialogue and increasing contestation.

As science increasingly serves as a key point of reference in public discourse, scientific knowledge itself has become subject to public contestation. Controversial topics such as climate change, the COVID-19 pandemic, artificial intelligence, and gender identities are politically and/or morally charged. Communicating scientific knowledge on these issues is essential for fostering evidence-based public discourse and enabling informed individual and collective decision-making (Scheufele, 2014). Climate change communication, for example, faces the dilemma of conveying scientific information accurately while simultaneously emphasizing the urgency of immediate action (Glavovic et al., 2022; Hornsey & Fielding, 2020).

At the same time, science communication has increasingly become a contested practice itself. Scientists who engage publicly may encounter criticism, hostility, or harassment, particularly in digital environments (Nölleke et al., 2023; Spannagel, 2024). They respond in different ways, including by emphasizing evidence-based arguments, stressing their role as neutral and contextualizing communicators, or withdrawing from public debates altogether—a phenomenon often described as the "chilling effect" (Nölleke et al., 2023). Beyond researchers themselves, professional science communicators face the challenge of defining the goals, normative foundations, and appropriate formats of science communication, while particularly addressing the difficulty of adequately representing scientific complexity.

These tensions are intensified by the changing roles of science and scientists in contemporary communication environments. Digital communication has accelerated publication cycles, contributed to a more pluralized information landscape, enabled new epistemic authorities, and facilitated the spread of misinformation and strategic disinformation campaigns (Iyengar & Massey, 2019; Neuberger et al., 2019). While social media create new opportunities for interaction between scientists and publics, they also provide spaces in which scientific claims are contested, polarized, or strategically challenged (Schäfer & Metag, 2021; Scheufele & Krause, 2019; Vraga & Bode, 2017).

This Special Issue examines science communication as a contested field shaped by conflicts over knowledge, authority, values, responsibilities, and interpretations of science in society. It focuses both on communication about controversial scientific topics and on conflicts, dilemmas, and controversies within science communication itself. The Special Issue invites theoretical, empirical, methodological, and practice-oriented contributions reflecting on the tensions that shape contemporary science communication.

Scope and Themes
Submissions may address topics including but not limited to the following:
Science Communication about Controversial Topics
    • How are controversial scientific issues negotiated in the media, and which factors shape their representation?
    • What shared responsibilities do the media and the scientific community have in fostering democratic deliberation on controversial scientific issues?
    • What role do controversies play in the reception and effects of science communication?
Dilemmas and Normative Conflicts in Science Communication
    • What (potentially conflicting) expectations are placed on science communicators, and how do they navigate them?
    • How might tensions between scientific neutrality and societal engagement intensify or be resolved in the future?
    • Which ethical challenges arise in science communication, particularly when addressing socially controversial issues?
Science Communication (Research) as a Field of Conflict
    • Under what circumstances, and why, does science communication itself become the subject of criticism or controversy?
    • How do misinformation, polarization, and declining trust shape the conditions for effective science communication?
    • To what extent can efforts to increase transparency and public participation reduce conflicts surrounding science, and to what extent are these efforts themselves subject to political or strategic instrumentalization?
    • What responsibilities does the science communication research community have in shaping science communication, including its normative and political dimensions?

Methodological Perspectives
    • Which methodological approaches are best suited to analyzing conflict dynamics in science communication?
    • How can the effects, reception, and participation processes of science communication be studied under conditions of controversy?
    • What ethical challenges arise when researching sensitive, conflict-laden, or highly polarized topics?

Production timeline
    • Deadline for submission of abstracts: 15 November 2026
    • Authors informed about article selection: mid-January 2027
    • Deadline for submission of manuscripts: 30 June 2027
    • Publication: Q1 2028

Article types and expected contributions
Submissions of research articles as well as practice insights, essays or review articles are welcome. We aim the special issue to include between 6–12 articles.

Please use the JCOM special issue submission template (see below) to submit abstracts.

JCOM special issue submission template 
Science Communication in Conflict - Controversies and Dilemmas of Science Communication

Please complete the following template if you are interested in contributing to this special issue of JCOM and send it to julia.metag@uni-muenster.de by 15 November 2026.

1. Proposed title: (max 20 words)

2. Article type (select one)
   See https://jcom.sissa.it/site/authors/ for more information about article types.

☐ Research Article

☐ Practice Insight

☐ Essay

☐ Review article

    3. Corresponding author (title, name, email and institutional affiliation)

    4. Co-authors (title, name, email and institutional affiliation for each)

    5. Abstract (max 500 words)

    6. Novelty and relevance to this Special Issue (max 250 words)
Please indicate briefly what is novel or distinctive about your proposed contribution and explain why it is timely and relevant in the context of the Special Issue.

    7. For research articles, please describe your methodological approach, which may include the study design, data collection or source material selection methods, and analytical approach (max 250 words).

    8. For practice insights, please describe the communication/engagement initiative or intervention, the target audiences and context, the communication strategies that have been (or will be) used and impact assessment methods (max 250 words).

    9. For essays, please describe the central issue being discussed,  why it is relevant to this special issue and how it is grounded in scholarship related to science communication research or practice (max 250 words).

References 

Glavovic, B. C., Smith, T. F., &  White, I. (2022). The tragedy of climate change science. Climate and Development, 14(9), 829–833. https://doi.org/10.1080/17565529.2021.2008855

Hornsey, M. J., & Fielding, K. S. (2020). Understanding (and reducing) inaction on climate change. Social Issues and Policy Review, 14(1), 3–35. https://doi.org/10.1111/sipr.12058

Iyengar, S. & Massey, D. S. (2019). Scientific communication in a post-truth society. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 116(16), 7656–7661. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1805868115

Neuberger, C., Bartsch, A., Reinemann, C., Fröhlich, R., Hanitzsch, T., & Schindler, J. (2019). Der digitale Wandel der Wissensordnung. Theorierahmen für die Analyse von Wahrheit, Wissen und Rationalität in der öffentlichen Kommunikation. Medien & Kommunikationswissenschaft, 67(2), 167–186. https://doi.org/10.5771/1615-634X-2019-2-167

Nölleke, D., Leonhardt, B. M., & Hanusch, F. (2023). “The chilling effect”: Medical scientists’ responses to audience feedback on their media appearances during the COVID-19 pandemic. Public Understanding of Science, 32(5), 546–560. https://doi.org/10.1177/09636625221146749

Schäfer, M. S., & Metag, J. (2021). Audiences of science communication between pluralisation, fragmentation and polarisation. In Routledge handbook of public communication of science and technology (S. 291–304). Routledge.

Scheufele, D. A. (2014). Science communication as political communication. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 111 Suppl 4(Suppl 4), 13585–13592. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1317516111

Scheufele, D. A., & Krause, N. M. (2019). Science audiences, misinformation, and fake news. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 116(16), 7662–7669. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1805871115

Spannagel, J. (2024). Die Ambivalenz des Zweifels. Zeitschrift für Menschenrechte, 17(2), 6–29. https://doi.org/10.46499/2236.2942

Thorp, H. H. (2021). It’s not as easy as it looks. Science, 374(6575), 1537. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abn7633

Vraga, E. K., & Bode, L. (2017). Using expert sources to correct health misinformation in social media. Science Communication, 39(5), 621–645. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547017731776