{"title":"Lucy as \"one of us\": Public misconception, national narrative, and the scientific evidence about <i>Australopithecus afarensis</i> in Ethiopia.","authors":"Yibeltal Temeche","doi":"10.1177/09636625251394524","DOIUrl":"10.1177/09636625251394524","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The 1974 discovery of Lucy in Ethiopia marked a watershed moment in paleoanthropology. While the scientific community classifies Lucy as an extinct early hominin species that predates <i>Homo sapiens</i> by millions of years, in Ethiopia, she has been embraced as a national matriarch-the first human and mother of humanity. This commentary analyzes how government campaigns and media coverage actively promote a humanized, scientifically inaccurate identity for Lucy. By framing her as \"one of us,\" these narratives sacrifice scientific facts for emotional resonance and commercial appeal. This popular mischaracterization creates significant obstacles for public science education and undermines scientific literacy, raising ethical questions about the role of the state and media in science communication. Ultimately, the article advocates for a balanced approach that celebrates Lucy's immense cultural and national importance without compromising the scientific integrity of human evolutionary science.</p>","PeriodicalId":48094,"journal":{"name":"Public Understanding of Science","volume":" ","pages":"508-514"},"PeriodicalIF":3.3,"publicationDate":"2026-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145702774","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Trust undone: How COVID-19 coverage shaped scientists' trust in journalism and their willingness to engage with the media.","authors":"Frank Marcinkowski, Hella de Haas, Sarah Kohler","doi":"10.1177/09636625261416830","DOIUrl":"10.1177/09636625261416830","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This study explores how scientists' experiences during the pandemic influenced their trust in journalism and their willingness to engage with the media. The study employed a survey approach, collecting data from 4089 scientists affiliated with German universities and research institutions. Trust in journalism was measured across five dimensions: appropriate topic selection, accurate representation, proper fact selection, fair assessment, and desirable impact. Structural equation modeling was used to analyze the relationships between dissatisfaction with pandemic-era media coverage, trust in journalism, and scientists' willingness to engage in science communication. Results show that scientists' trust in news media is generally limited and varies across media types. The COVID-19 pandemic exacerbated distrust, particularly in media outlets expected to maintain high standards, such as national newspapers and public broadcasters. Trust in journalism proved central in mediating dissatisfaction and engagement, highlighting that distrust may reduce scientists' media involvement and, in turn, weaken public trust in science.</p>","PeriodicalId":48094,"journal":{"name":"Public Understanding of Science","volume":" ","pages":"490-507"},"PeriodicalIF":4.3,"publicationDate":"2026-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13096614/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"146167359","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Hannah R Feldman, Fabien Medvecky, Michelle Riedlinger
{"title":"Ethics, generative AI and science communication.","authors":"Hannah R Feldman, Fabien Medvecky, Michelle Riedlinger","doi":"10.1177/09636625251393621","DOIUrl":"10.1177/09636625251393621","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>In this essay, we argue that the applications of generative-AI technologies to science communication need careful consideration to ensure such uses are desirable, and socially and ethically acceptable. In early applications of GenAI in science communication, especially in public media, there has been swift and overwhelmingly negative response to news about its use. Drawing on existing literature about generative-AI in adjacent fields to science communication, and on the scholarship on the ethics of science communication, this article maps out the key ethical issues that the use of generative-AI technologies raise for science communication. Specifically, acknowledging that generative-AI is more than an output-producing technology but is a constellation of governance, infrastructure, data, human and computing operating systems, we argue that three dimensions of ethical concerns need to be explored: the communication <i>outputs</i> of generative AI; the social and environmental <i>impacts</i> of using generative AI technologies in science communication and the <i>narratives</i> we tell about AI technology.</p>","PeriodicalId":48094,"journal":{"name":"Public Understanding of Science","volume":" ","pages":"388-398"},"PeriodicalIF":4.3,"publicationDate":"2026-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12999996/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145649863","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Shedding light on public perceptions of scientists who engage in wrongness admission amidst a failed replication.","authors":"Nicholas D Evans, Adam K Fetterman","doi":"10.1177/09636625251372820","DOIUrl":"10.1177/09636625251372820","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Admitting that one's research findings are wrong involves admitting a potential instance of incompetence, which can keep scientists from engaging in wrongness admission. However, wrongness admission can yield favorable perceptions. In five experiments (<i>N</i> = 2420), we tested whether wrongness admission yields higher perceived trustworthiness in the scientist and trust in science and discipline-specific research as well as public funding support for the scientist, science, and discipline-specific research. Scientists engaging in wrongness admission (vs refuse or do not comment) were perceived as more trustworthy and received more support for federal funding for their own research. Moreover, wrongness admission yielded similar levels of science and discipline-specific public funding support. Wrongness admission not only facilitated higher scientist trustworthiness, but trustworthiness was, in turn, associated with greater trust in science and psychology, as well as scientist and psychology public funding support. This work highlights potential benefits of scientist wrongness admission amidst failed replications.</p>","PeriodicalId":48094,"journal":{"name":"Public Understanding of Science","volume":" ","pages":"276-294"},"PeriodicalIF":4.3,"publicationDate":"2026-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13000001/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145769436","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Trust, experience, and innovation: Key factors shaping American attitudes about AI.","authors":"Risa Palm, Justin T Kingsland, Toby Bolsen","doi":"10.1177/09636625251372510","DOIUrl":"10.1177/09636625251372510","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>A large survey of American adults explored the complex landscape of attitudes toward artificial intelligence (AI). It explored the degree of concern regarding specific potential outcomes of the new advances in AI technology and correlates of these concerns. Key variables associated with the direction and intensity of concern include prior experience using a large language model such as Chat GPT, general trust in science, adherence to the precautionary principle versus support for unrestricted innovation, and demographic factors such as gender. By identifying these relationships, the paper offers insights into the American public's response to AI that can inform the development of policies aimed at either regulating or encouraging its advancement.</p>","PeriodicalId":48094,"journal":{"name":"Public Understanding of Science","volume":" ","pages":"295-312"},"PeriodicalIF":3.3,"publicationDate":"2026-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145132248","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Socio-economic status and authority deference: Understanding public (dis)engagement with science in Europe.","authors":"Lucilla Losi","doi":"10.1177/09636625251374514","DOIUrl":"10.1177/09636625251374514","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>It is repeatedly observed that public engagement with science is more common among members of the public with a more privileged socio-economic profile; however little evidence on the mechanisms of this relationship exists. This article proposes one such mechanism in deference towards authority. Through Structural Equation Model on Eurobarometer 2021 data, I investigate if favoring expert guidance over public participation in decision-making on science-related issues mediates the relationship between people's socio-economic status and engagement with science. Results show that higher socio-economic status is associated with greater engagement but also with favor toward experts' deliberation. Preferring experts over public involvement in decision-making is also associated with more informative engagement and less general engagement. Nevertheless, this mediating role is rather weak. Moreover, the study examines how other perceptions of science relate to socio-economic status and engagement, emphasizing the broader social and structural factors that shape opportunities for participation.</p>","PeriodicalId":48094,"journal":{"name":"Public Understanding of Science","volume":" ","pages":"313-332"},"PeriodicalIF":3.3,"publicationDate":"2026-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145132203","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Joevarian Hudiyana, Agnes Patricia, Nadya Hanaveriesa, Azriel Lilo Timothy Siregar, Idhamsyah Eka Putra
{"title":"The leap of faith in science hypothesis: The link between secular belief and confidence in scientific consensus is better explained by faith in science than by knowledge.","authors":"Joevarian Hudiyana, Agnes Patricia, Nadya Hanaveriesa, Azriel Lilo Timothy Siregar, Idhamsyah Eka Putra","doi":"10.1177/09636625251396368","DOIUrl":"10.1177/09636625251396368","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Previous studies have examined the relationship between religion and science, but the role of secular belief systems in shaping attitudes toward scientific findings remains understudied. This research tested the <i>leap of faith</i> hypothesis, suggesting that secular individuals may accept scientific claims based more on faith in science than on scientific literacy. In Study 1 (<i>N</i> = 202) and a preregistered Study 2 (<i>N</i> = 300), Indonesian adults completed measures of secular beliefs, faith in science, scientific literacy, and confidence in scientific consensus. Across both studies, faith in science consistently mediated the effect of secular beliefs on confidence in scientific consensus, whereas scientific literacy did not. These findings suggest that secular individuals may place trust in scientific claims through conviction-indicating that confidence in science can operate as a faith-like commitment rather than a cognitive understanding.</p>","PeriodicalId":48094,"journal":{"name":"Public Understanding of Science","volume":" ","pages":"333-351"},"PeriodicalIF":3.3,"publicationDate":"2026-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145702768","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"'A fiction author can do anything, we're bound by the facts': The risks and opportunities of taking advantage of cognitive biases in storytelling for science communication.","authors":"Hannah Little, Juliet Dunstone","doi":"10.1177/09636625251387445","DOIUrl":"10.1177/09636625251387445","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Storytelling is a growing topic in science communication research, highlighting the importance of learning from existing storytelling research from other disciplines. Storytelling research in cultural evolution has identified a number of cognitive biases in how we transmit information: stories are remembered and passed on more faithfully when they contain social and survival information, negative information or counterintuitive information. In this article, we review this cultural evolution literature and present findings from a set of interviews with science communication professionals. We asked science communicators about the potential benefits and risks that may come about when using cognitive biases within science communication storytelling. Science communicators reported already using some cognitive biases in their practice. Participants also expressed concerns about some tactics that might contradict objectives of science communication, threaten the integrity of science and science communication and risk the welfare of audiences. We map the benefits and risks reported using a thematic analysis.</p>","PeriodicalId":48094,"journal":{"name":"Public Understanding of Science","volume":" ","pages":"367-387"},"PeriodicalIF":4.3,"publicationDate":"2026-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12999997/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145574704","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Steven David Pickering, Martin Ejnar Hansen, Han Dorussen, Jason Reifler, Thomas J Scotto, Yosuke Sunahara, Dorothy Yen
{"title":"Trust in scientists and doctors: The roles of faith, politics, education and gender.","authors":"Steven David Pickering, Martin Ejnar Hansen, Han Dorussen, Jason Reifler, Thomas J Scotto, Yosuke Sunahara, Dorothy Yen","doi":"10.1177/09636625251386562","DOIUrl":"10.1177/09636625251386562","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This article examines trust in science in England, focusing on variation across demographic and ideological groups. Using survey data from 11,173 respondents, we compare trust in two domains, medical doctors and scientists, to explore whether predictors operate similarly across these professional groups. We find higher education is associated with greater trust, while right-wing political orientation predicts lower trust. Religious affiliation also matters, with some faith groups reporting lower trust relative to the non-religious baseline. Gender differences emerge as well, particularly in trust in medical doctors. Respondents selecting 'Prefer not to say' on the religion item report significantly lower trust in both doctors and scientists, consistent with a broader privacy-motivated disclosure style. Our results highlight the importance of considering not just overall levels of trust in science, but variation across education, ideology, religion and gender, and they suggest that trust in doctors and trust in scientists, while related, are not interchangeable.</p>","PeriodicalId":48094,"journal":{"name":"Public Understanding of Science","volume":" ","pages":"352-366"},"PeriodicalIF":4.3,"publicationDate":"2026-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12999988/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145534883","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Scientists' public engagement goals: Perceived importance and personal prioritization.","authors":"John C Besley, Anthony Dudo","doi":"10.1177/09636625251367685","DOIUrl":"10.1177/09636625251367685","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This study used a survey (<i>n</i> = 1897) of United States- and Canada-based scientists in six scientific fields to explore correlates of perceived (a) public engagement goal importance and (b) personal goal prioritization. Building on the Integrated Behavioral Model, the results suggest that scientists' beliefs about the societal benefits of a goal (i.e. attitudes) are the most consistent predictors of goal importance ratings and personal goal prioritization. Other beliefs are also associated with personal goal prioritization, including beliefs about personal benefits, agency (i.e. self-efficacy), and to a lesser extent, social norms. The data further suggests that basic scientists have similar goals to applied scientists who were in the sample, and that there are few differences across the six fields studied. The conclusion is that proponents of specific behavioral goals may wish to focus on communicating the benefits of goals to scientists, more so than norms or efficacy.</p>","PeriodicalId":48094,"journal":{"name":"Public Understanding of Science","volume":" ","pages":"214-235"},"PeriodicalIF":3.3,"publicationDate":"2026-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145139094","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}