Public attitudes toward genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in Kenya remain mixed due to limited knowledge, policy gaps, and cultural factors. Despite the 2020 commercialisation of Bt cotton, perceptions of GM technologies are largely unfavourable. This study surveyed 416 respondents across 14 counties to assess awareness and knowledge levels of GMOs. Results showed 49% support GMOs, 27% are uncertain, and 24% oppose them. Misconceptions persist, with 49.3% citing size and 22.4% recognising labelling as a means of identifying GMOs. Awareness of GMO commercialisation was low (24%), though nearly half correctly identified Bt cotton as an approved GMO, and 32.7% unaware of any institution carrying out GM research. Education significantly influenced acceptance ($\upchi^2$ = 68.322, p 0.001). Radio was the most trusted information source (29.3%), and scientists were the most credible (46.4%). The findings underscore the need for targeted public communication strategies to address misinformation and enhance understanding of biosafety and biotechnology in Kenya.

We live in bewildering times. Unusual politicians and political movements are rising to the fore, geopolitical maps are being redrawn, old certainties are collapsing, and knowledge — both good and bad — is flowing differently from ever before. Based on the belief that effective communication of science requires understanding of our communication landscape, in this article I offer a brief `technological tectonics' of our current communication landscape, exploring how shifts in communication technologies have made certain politics and certain flows of knowledge possible. I then offer three paths for action — in reflection, practice and advocacy — for those interested in the communication of science.

Facts may have been declared dead, yet many science communicators continue to fight to keep them alive. At the same time, it is increasingly clear that preserving facts alone is not enough. To secure a meaningful place for science in today's world, science communicators must also develop new strategies that go beyond defending facts to fostering trust and engagement. They must fully embrace the `post-post truth' condition, in which the blurring of fact and opinion has become deeply entrenched in public discourse; and where many no longer know – or care — what constitutes truth. This can be achieved by rethinking science communication as performance beyond content delivery. This means creating aesthetic, existential, sensorial, and other experiences that make engagement with science more about relationships and identity, and less about establishing a common ground of truth. We illustrate what this approach looks like through the Theatre Dialogues of Dissent — a Dutch science communication project on the polarisation surrounding climate change.

I was invited by my colleagues, Leßmöllmann and Medvecky, to participate in a set of commentaries on the role of science communication in the post-truth era, which will be published in the Journal of Science Communication. My reflection will focus on how reshaping and promoting official or governmental science communication could help minimise the impact of misinformation on science-related issues, such as climate change, vaccines and artificial intelligence, among others, in the public sphere. Although European and Western governments have increasingly embraced the integration of science communication as a structural and ethical component of their public information strategies, these efforts have mainly centred on fostering dissemination practices led by individual researchers or research teams. However, this approach often overlooks the equally critical role of institutional communication systems, which are incapable of translating scientific knowledge into clear, accessible and actionable information for the broader public. This omission becomes particularly salient during crises when citizens actively seek guidance grounded in scientific evidence and are frequently met with institutional silence, ambiguity or poorly coordinated messaging.

Authoritarian populism as a political system is on the global rise. In (what was) Bolsonaro's Brazil, Orbán's Hungary, or Trump's U.S., it yielded or yields a communicative ecosystem loosening ties with truthfulness and challenging a common ground that science has epistemic authority. In our paper we argue that the declining role of truth as a compass in public discourse and decision-making notable in what were seen as stable democracies poses challenges for the way we do science communication and how we do it on a very fundamental level. We suggest there is a need to reconsider assumptions about “good science communication”, and we suggest that science communication should not ignore the fact that both knowledge and communication are inescapably intertwined with power. Specifically, the power play here is about epistemic authority, sometimes even aspired dominance: who gets to have a say over what is considered knowledge? Importantly, this power play is not, in the current environment, being played collaboratively; it is competitive. “How to communicate science” is not the main issue for communicators anymore, but how to create a communicative environment where people listen at all and might consider a scientifically based argument without, from the onset, dismissing it as “woke”, or “unfree”. In this paper, we argue that science communicators should factor in the strategic interactions that inherently exist in the communicative ecosystem. As a framework to help communicators to analyze these interactions and develop decision-making options, we draw on game theory, a branch of rational choice theory that studies strategic interactions where outcomes depend on the choices of all actors involved. Following this logic, we argue that science communication as a field and set of practices could be empowered by using game theory, and we spell out what this might mean.

The COVID-19 pandemic exposed tensions between science, politics, and public trust in Brazil. Amid the rise of far-right populism, denialist narratives, and disinformation, scientific evidence became entangled in ideological disputes. Drawing on studies of media coverage, social media dynamics, and public perception of science, this commentary argues that traditional deficit-model approaches are insufficient in polarized contexts. Rebuilding trust requires rethinking science communication as a democratic and culturally embedded practice, grounded in dialogue, empathy, and participation. Strengthening institutional communication, engaging diverse actors, and recognizing multiple knowledge systems are essential to restoring public relevance and legitimacy of science.

There is widespread concern that the scientific enterprise is under attack, fuelled by misinformation campaigns, anti-intellectual political leaders, and growing public skepticism. In response, many scientists are mobilising to “stand up for science,” hoping to persuade publics of the many public health, technological, and economic benefits brought by scientific discoveries. In this commentary, we argue that such persuasion-based science communication approaches are neither effective nor appropriate because they neglect the role that values play in people's perceptions of and experiences with science. We propose shifting our focus to scientific empowerment, which we define as the ability and agency to inform and influence one's life through skills, knowledge, opportunities, experiences, and resources related to science. We argue that scientific empowerment can provide a practical means of acting upon one's values, foregrounding people's questions and concerns about science, rather than focusing on a battle about whose facts can be believed.

In an age of populism, rising authoritarianism and far-right movements that often go hand-in-hand with questioning of scientific knowledge, science communication is challenged to respond. How to foster dialogue and inclusion oriented interaction with publics and stakeholders when powerful people and institutions deny science, or if interlocutors don't share the assumption that science yields valid knowledge? In this commentary set, researchers of science communication analyse the current challenges and suggest answers from different perspectives, trying to brush against the grain in order to explore inspiring ideas. Their suggestions, in a nutshell: (1) Good science communication without a fundamental change in the platform logics of social media platforms will not be possible, and science communicators should fight for a better digital ecosystem. (2) Science communication that is blind to political power play will not be strong enough for rising the voice of science in a power world. (3) Governments need to invest in a resilient and reliable way of communicating in risk and crisis situations, because otherwise science and science communication lose trust. (4) Science communication as a democratic practice could create opportunities for participation in decision processes in order to support and strengthen democracy. (5) Instead of persuading the denialists of science, science communication could adopt values connected with science and empower people to reach their goals with the help of scientific knowledge and practices. (6) Science communication might embrace the performative power of communication in order to persist in a post-truth world. The commentary set highlights crucial aspects of what we see as a communication challenge for dialogue and inclusion oriented science communication and it aims at opening up discussion and debate.

Generative artificial intelligence (AI) tools are increasingly present in academic writing workflows, and their irresponsible use poses a growing threat to the integrity of scholarly publishing. In this editorial, we highlight the emergence of AI-generated references, or so-called “ghost references”, as a specific concern for JCOM and the wider academic community. We consider how AI tools like large language models can produce convincing yet fictitious citations that might bypass standard peer review. Also, we reaffirm JCOM's policy requiring full disclosure of any generative AI use in preparing manuscripts, remind authors that the responsibility for accuracy and integrity lies with those whose names appear on submissions, and outline our commitment to reject, withdraw, or retract manuscripts found to contain fabricated content at any stage of the publication process. As a journal dedicated to science communication, JCOM maintains a strong focus on the honest and transparent development of knowledge.

With the widespread use of AI-generated content (AIGC) on social media, its potential to spread misinformation poses threats to the public. Although AI disclosure is widely promoted as a transparency measure to prompt critical evaluation, its effectiveness in science communication remains controversial. This study conducted a within-subjects experiment (N = 433) to examine how AI disclosure affects perceived credibility of science communication texts and the moderating roles of readers' negative attitudes towards AI and audience involvement. The experiment manipulated AI disclosure labels and information veracity. The results revealed a truth-falsity crossover effect: AI disclosure significantly reduced the perceived credibility of correct information while unexpectedly increasing the perceived credibility of misinformation. Negative attitudes towards AI significantly moderated these effects, whereas audience involvement exerted only limited influence. These findings highlight the complex and sometimes counterproductive consequences of AI disclosure in science communication and suggest implications for cue-based processing, algorithm aversion, and the design of disclosure mechanisms.