1887

Learning from History to Increase Positive Public Reception and Social Value Alignment of Evidence-Based Science Communication

    Author: Jason A. Tetro1,*
    VIEW AFFILIATIONS HIDE AFFILIATIONS
    Affiliations: 1: College of Biological Sciences, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON N1G 2W1, Canada
    AUTHOR AND ARTICLE INFORMATION AUTHOR AND ARTICLE INFORMATION
    • Received 17 November 2017 Accepted 06 December 2017 Published 30 March 2018
    • ©2018 Author(s). Published by the American Society for Microbiology.

    • [open-access] This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ and https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/legalcode), which grants the public the nonexclusive right to copy, distribute, or display the published work.
    • †Supplemental materials available at http://asmscience.org/jmbe
    • *Corresponding author. Mailing address: Dean’s Office, College of Biological Sciences, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON N1G 2W1, Canada. Phone: 519-824-4120, x 52730. E-mail: [email protected].
    Source: J. Microbiol. Biol. Educ. March 2018 vol. 19 no. 1 doi:10.1128/jmbe.v19i1.1532
MyBook is a cheap paperback edition of the original book and will be sold at uniform, low price.
  • PDF
    183.21 Kb
  • XML
    52.67 Kb
  • HTML
    46.87 Kb

    Abstract:

    For effective science communication, three general objectives should be taken into consideration: 1) accurate conveyance of the scientific evidence; 2) warm public reception of the communicator; and 3) alignment of the information with social values. An examination of both successful and failed science communication efforts over the course of history can reveal strategies to better meet these objectives. This article looks back at influential moments of science communication over the past two millennia in the context of the objectives and, using lessons learned from these events as a guide, introduces a five-element approach to improve the potential for attaining the objectives.

References & Citations

1. Kitzinger J 2004 Audience and readership research 167 182 Downing JD, McQuail D, Schlesinger P The SAGE handbook of media studies SAGE Publications Ltd Thousand Oaks, CA 10.4135/9781412976077.n9 http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781412976077.n9
2. Dietz T 2013 Bringing values and deliberation to science communication Proc Natl Acad Sci 110 Suppl 3 14081 14087 10.1073/pnas.1212740110 23940350 3752165 http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1212740110
3. Fiske ST, Dupree C 2014 Gaining trust as well as respect in communicating to motivated audiences about science topics Proc Natl Acad Sci 111 Suppl 4 13593 13597 10.1073/pnas.1317505111 25225372 4183178 http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1317505111
4. Fischhoff B 2013 The science of science communication Proc Natl Acad Sci 110 Suppl 3 14033 14039 10.1073/pnas.1213273110 3752164 http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1213273110
5. Fischhoff B, Scheufele DA 2014 The science of science communication II Proc Natl Acad Sci 111 Suppl 4 13583 13584 10.1073/pnas.1414635111 25225375 4183180 http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1414635111
6. Dudo A, Besley JC 2016 Scientists’ prioritization of communication objectives for public engagement PLOS One 11 2 e0148867 10.1371/journal.pone.0148867 4767388 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0148867
7. Burns TW, O’Connor DJ, Stocklemayer SM 2003 Science communication: a contemporary definition Pub Underst Sci 12 2 183 202 10.1177/09636625030122004 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/09636625030122004
8. Lucretius Carus T, Esolen AM 1995 On the nature of things = de rerum natura Johns Hopkins University Press Baltimore, MD
9. Wisniak J 2008 Conservation of energy: readings on the origins of the first law of thermodynamics. Part I Educación química 19 159 171
10. Schiesaro A 2007 Lucretius and Roman politics and history 41 58 Hardie P, Gillespie S The Cambridge companion to Lucretius Cambridge Companions to Literature Cambridge University Press Cambridge, UK 10.1017/CCOL9780521848015.004 http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CCOL9780521848015.004
11. Copernicus N 1543 Nicolai Copernici Torinensis De revolvtionibvs orbium coelestium Norimbergæ, apud Ioh Petreium 10.5479/sil.305973.39088000648568 http://dx.doi.org/10.5479/sil.305973.39088000648568
12. Gower B 1997 Scientific method: an historical and philosophical introduction Routledge London, New York
13. Margolis H 2002 It started with Copernicus: how turning the world inside out led to the scientific revolution McGraw-Hill New York
14. Thomson KS, Rachootin SP 1982 Turning points in Darwin’s life Biol J Linnean Soc 17 1 23 37 10.1111/j.1095-8312.1982.tb02011.x http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-8312.1982.tb02011.x
15. Darwin C 1859 On the origin of species by means of natural selection J. Murray London
16. Editorial 2009 Darwin and culture Nature 461 7268 1173 1174 10.1038/4611173b 19865117 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/4611173b
17. Browne J 2003 Charles Darwin as a celebrity Sci Cont 16 1 175 194 10.1017/S0269889703000772 http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0269889703000772
18. Park HJ 2001 The creation-evolution debate: carving creationism in the public mind Pub Underst Sci 10 2 173 186 10.1088/0963-6625/10/2/302 http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0963-6625/10/2/302
19. Agnew NM, Ford KM, Hayes PJ 1994 Expertise in context: personally constructed, socially selected, and reality-relevant? Int J Expert Syst 7 1 65 88
20. Pollay RW 1986 The distorted mirror: reflections on the unintended consequences of advertising J Mktg 50 2 18 36
21. Fleck L 1935 Entstehung und Entwicklung einer wissenschaftlichen Tatsache: Einf. in d. Lehre von Denkstil u. Denkkollektiv 1. Aufl. ed Suhrkamp, Frankfurt am Main Germany
22. Sensevy G, Tiberghien A, Santini J, Laubé S, Griggs P 2008 An epistemological approach to modeling: cases studies and implications for science teaching Sci Educ 92 3 424 446 10.1002/sce.20268 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/sce.20268
23. Wilczek F 2008 My wizard Phys Today 23 3 42
24. Stocklmayer SM, Rennie LJ, Gilbert JK The roles of the formal and informal sectors in the provision of effective science education Stud Sci Educ 2010 46 1 1 44 10.1080/03057260903562284 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03057260903562284
25. Potter F 1987 Julius Sumner Miller Phys Today 40 5 114 10.1063/1.2820288 http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.2820288
26. Maarschalk J 1986 Scientific literacy through informal science teaching Eur J Sci Educ 8 4 353 360 10.1080/0140528860080402 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0140528860080402
27. Long M, Steinke J 1996 The thrill of everyday science: images of science and scientists on children’s educational science programmes in the United States Pub Underst Sci 5 2 101 119 10.1088/0963-6625/5/2/002 http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0963-6625/5/2/002
28. Gallup 2017 Most important problem Gallup Inc. www.gallup.com/poll/1675/most-important-problem.aspx
29. Scheufele DA 2014 Science communication as political communication Proc Natl Acad Sci 111 Suppl 4 13585 13592 10.1073/pnas.1317516111 25225389 4183176 http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1317516111
30. Chen GM 2013 Losing face on social media Commun Res 42 6 819 838 10.1177/0093650213510937 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0093650213510937
31. Decety J, Cowell JM 2014 The complex relation between morality and empathy Trends Cogn Sci 18 7 337 339 10.1016/j.tics.2014.04.008 24972506 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2014.04.008
32. Gonzalez-Liencres C, Shamay-Tsoory SG, Brune M 2013 Towards a neuroscience of empathy: ontogeny, phylogeny, brain mechanisms, context and psychopathology Neurosci Biobehav Rev 37 8 1537 1548 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2013.05.001 23680700 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2013.05.001
33. Kurtines WM, Alvarez M, Azmitia M 1990 Science and morality: the role of values in science and the scientific study of moral phenomena Psychol Bull 107 3 283 295 10.1037/0033-2909.107.3.283 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.107.3.283
34. Zak PJ, Barraza JA 2013 The neurobiology of collective action Front Neurosci 7 211 10.3389/fnins.2013.00211 24311995 3832785 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2013.00211
35. Decety J, Bartal IB, Uzefovsky F, Knafo-Noam A 2016 Empathy as a driver of prosocial behaviour: highly conserved neurobehavioural mechanisms across species Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 371 1686 20150077 10.1098/rstb.2015.0077 4685523 http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2015.0077
36. Prochazkova E, Kret ME 2017 Connecting minds and sharing emotions through mimicry: a neurocognitive model of emotional contagion Neurosci Biobehav Rev 80 99 114 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2017.05.013 28506927 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2017.05.013
37. Decety J 2010 The neurodevelopment of empathy in humans Dev Neurosci 32 4 257 267 10.1159/000317771 20805682 3021497 http://dx.doi.org/10.1159/000317771
38. Teding van Berkhout E, Malouff JM 2016 The efficacy of empathy training: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials J Couns Psychol 63 1 32 41 10.1037/cou0000093 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/cou0000093
39. Wundrich M, Schwartz C, Feige B, Lemper D, Nissen C, Voderholzer U 2017 Empathy training in medical students—a randomized controlled trial Med Teach 39 10 1096 1098 10.1080/0142159X.2017.1355451 28749198 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0142159X.2017.1355451
40. Chaitoff A, Sun B, Windover A, Bokar D, Featherall J, Rothberg MB, Misra-Hebert AD 2017 Associations between physician empathy, physician characteristics, and standardized measures of patient experience Acad Med 92 10 1464 1471 10.1097/ACM.0000000000001671 28379929 http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000001671
41. Gosselin E, Paul-Savoie E, Lavoie S, Bourgault P 2017 Evaluation of nurse empathy perceived by the standardized patient in simulation: a French validation of the Jefferson scale of patient perceptions of physician empathy J Nurs Meas 25 2 152 161 10.1891/1061-3749.25.2.E152 28789745 http://dx.doi.org/10.1891/1061-3749.25.2.E152
42. Hojat M, Gonnella JS, Nasca TJ, Mangione S, Vergare M, Magee M 2002 Physician empathy: definition, components, measurement, and relationship to gender and specialty Am J Psychiatry 159 9 1563 1569 10.1176/appi.ajp.159.9.1563 12202278 http://dx.doi.org/10.1176/appi.ajp.159.9.1563
43. Hojat M, Gonnella JS 2015 Eleven years of data on the Jefferson scale of empathy—medical student version (JSE-S): proxy norm data and tentative cutoff scores Med Princ Pract 24 4 344 350 10.1159/000381954 25924560 5588243 http://dx.doi.org/10.1159/000381954

Supplemental Material

No supplementary material available for this content.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journal/jmbe/10.1128/jmbe.v19i1.1532
2018-03-30
2019-12-12

Abstract:

For effective science communication, three general objectives should be taken into consideration: 1) accurate conveyance of the scientific evidence; 2) warm public reception of the communicator; and 3) alignment of the information with social values. An examination of both successful and failed science communication efforts over the course of history can reveal strategies to better meet these objectives. This article looks back at influential moments of science communication over the past two millennia in the context of the objectives and, using lessons learned from these events as a guide, introduces a five-element approach to improve the potential for attaining the objectives.

Highlighted Text: Show | Hide
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/jmbe/19/1/jmbe-19-41.html?itemId=/content/journal/jmbe/10.1128/jmbe.v19i1.1532&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Author and Article Information

  • Received 17 November 2017 Accepted 06 December 2017 Published 30 March 2018
  • ©2018 Author(s). Published by the American Society for Microbiology.

  • [open-access] This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ and https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/legalcode), which grants the public the nonexclusive right to copy, distribute, or display the published work.
  • †Supplemental materials available at http://asmscience.org/jmbe
  • *Corresponding author. Mailing address: Dean’s Office, College of Biological Sciences, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON N1G 2W1, Canada. Phone: 519-824-4120, x 52730. E-mail: [email protected].

Back to top
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Please check the format of the address you have entered.
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error