Public Understanding of Science最新文献

{"title":"How do you argue with a science denial meme? Memed responses may be counter-productive for responding to science denial online.","authors":"Hannah Little, Justin Sulik","doi":"10.1177/09636625251341509","DOIUrl":"10.1177/09636625251341509","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Science denial 'memes' are a viral form of communication that attempt to undermine complex scientific ideas using memorable soundbites. These memes misrepresent the scientific content they are 'debunking', making responding to them challenging. To identify common strategies, we analysed Twitter/X responses to the anti-evolution meme 'why are there still monkeys?'. Strategies included literal explanations about why the reasoning behind the meme is flawed, and analogies that mirror the original meme to varying degrees (e.g. in structure and/or domain). We evaluated different response strategies using an experiment with participants from the United States who either endorsed or denied evolution. Participants rated their understanding of the original meme and different response strategies, and how effective and persuasive they found them. Across participants, literal explanations were rated more understandable, effective and persuasive than analogical responses. Memed rebuttals may thus be a counter-productive strategy for responding to science denial online.</p>","PeriodicalId":48094,"journal":{"name":"Public Understanding of Science","volume":" ","pages":"1088-1106"},"PeriodicalIF":3.3,"publicationDate":"2025-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12535622/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144192339","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":"Tensions in the public communication by scientists and scientific institutions: Sources, dimensions, and ways forward.","authors":"Massimiano Bucchi, Mike S Schäfer","doi":"10.1177/09636625251343507","DOIUrl":"10.1177/09636625251343507","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Tensions between scientific organizations' conceptions and demands regarding public communication on the one hand and the public communication of individual scientists on the other hand exist and may even become more prevalent. Such tensions revolve around issues of institutional reputation management and academic freedom, centralized messaging and individual autonomy, or scientific neutrality and political engagement, and can be catalyzed by changes in media landscapes and sociocultural contexts surrounding scientific institutions. This essay identifies sources and key dimensions of these tensions. It also explores how institutions manage such tensions and how scientists respond, ranging from loyalty to institutional policies to open dissent, self-censorship, and exit. To mitigate conflicts, it advocates for inclusive and transparent communication policies that balance institutional goals with scientific autonomy, fostering trust and ensuring that both organizations and researchers contribute effectively to public discourse.</p>","PeriodicalId":48094,"journal":{"name":"Public Understanding of Science","volume":" ","pages":"1107-1116"},"PeriodicalIF":3.3,"publicationDate":"2025-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144175337","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":"Public views on research with publicly available data in Switzerland: Implications for digital research, science communication, and policy.","authors":"Paola Daniore, Jana Sedlakova, Federica Zavattaro, Zoé Huber, Melanie Knieps, Manon Haulotte, Togbé Agbessi Alangue, Artemis Faulk, Viktor von Wyl, Yaniv Benhamou, Felix Gille","doi":"10.1177/09636625251330575","DOIUrl":"10.1177/09636625251330575","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The increasing volume of publicly available data brought about by digitalization offers researchers opportunities to examine public sentiment on various national and global issues. However, concerns linked to the use of publicly available data in digital research are insufficiently addressed. To ensure its ethical and trustworthy conduct, it is crucial to assess the public's perception of digital research with publicly available data. We conducted 10 focus groups with 75 participants from the German-, French-, and Italian-speaking regions in Switzerland, reflecting nationwide perspectives on digital research with publicly available data. Through a thematic analysis, four major themes emerged: (1) expectations toward actors and digital research with publicly available data, such as alignment with research standards to promote result validity, using research findings for societal benefit, and ensuring transparency on data use through informed consent; (2) concerns about data reuse for purposes beyond the study's objectives, especially for financial gain, as well as concerns about method reliability, data quality, and privacy; (3) mitigative measures to minimize potential harm, such as through the involvement of external oversight committees; and (4) supportive measures encompassing communication strategies to raise awareness and inform the public about the use of their data for research purposes. Our findings suggest public support for digital research with publicly available data provided that specific expectations are met. Developing a framework for legitimate digital research with publicly available data is identified as a valuable next step, with a focus on broadening public awareness on digital research with publicly available data through nationwide communication campaigns and introducing relevant oversight measures to foster trust.</p>","PeriodicalId":48094,"journal":{"name":"Public Understanding of Science","volume":" ","pages":"988-1008"},"PeriodicalIF":3.3,"publicationDate":"2025-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12535623/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144121257","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":"Make America quiet again: Achieving socially robust knowledge on noise pollution through citizen science.","authors":"Kirsten R Vegt, Janneke E Elberse, Bastiaan T Rutjens, Laurens K Hessels","doi":"10.1177/09636625251338190","DOIUrl":"10.1177/09636625251338190","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Socially robust knowledge is scientific knowledge accepted by society for its contextual relevance. Citizen science, involving non-professional scientists, offers a promising approach to developing such knowledge. This study examines how citizen science fosters socially robust knowledge through a case-study on noise pollution's impact on health and well-being in the Dutch village of America. Citizen scientists partnered with researchers of the Dutch National Institute for Public Health and the Environment to study train noise, employing diverse data-collection methods. Interviews with participants revealed trust in this approach and outcomes, contrasting with conventional noise-pollution research. The integration of extended expertise and real-world context, coupled with the project's iterative feedback loop, ensured that findings were accurate and locally relevant. This case-study underscores citizen science's potential to create relevant and adaptable policy-relevant science, offering concrete insights into the key elements that contribute to the social robustness of scientific outcomes.</p>","PeriodicalId":48094,"journal":{"name":"Public Understanding of Science","volume":" ","pages":"1066-1087"},"PeriodicalIF":3.3,"publicationDate":"2025-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12535618/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144498438","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":"Indirect audiences and conflicting narratives about oral contraception: Emergent coverage of \"the pill\" in <i>The New York Times</i>, 1951-1965.","authors":"Robin E Jensen, Madison A Krall, Megan E Cullinan, Ghanima Almuaili","doi":"10.1177/09636625251336650","DOIUrl":"10.1177/09636625251336650","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>When the first oral contraceptive pill was approved in the United States in 1960, scientific information for potential users was scant. Newspapers were one of the few sources of lay pill-related content. This study offers a critical-rhetorical analysis of the earliest <i>New York Times</i> coverage of the oral contraceptive pill (<i>N</i> = 292), to assess how audiences were guided to understand and interpret this new technology. Findings reveal that, of the major news genres represented (e.g. stock, religion, and science reports), all provided indirect information about the pill for potential consumers, with conflicting news-genre-specific narratives highlighting the pill's: (a) volatility and unpredictability, (b), divisiveness and complexity, and (c) placement within the trajectory of scientific progress, respectively. Lay people interested in using the pill were not primary audiences for this coverage but were, instead, unintended or secondary audiences, and evidence of women's thoughts or professional opinions about the pill were rarely included.</p>","PeriodicalId":48094,"journal":{"name":"Public Understanding of Science","volume":" ","pages":"1028-1045"},"PeriodicalIF":3.3,"publicationDate":"2025-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144129194","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":"Anti-science and science-skeptical attitudes over time: The case of France in historical perspective.","authors":"Emiliano Grossman","doi":"10.1177/09636625251320331","DOIUrl":"10.1177/09636625251320331","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This article looks at how the determinants of anti-science and science-skeptical attitudes have evolved over the past 50 years. It focuses on several standard explanations of anti-science and science-skeptical attitudes-the role of religiosity, the role of education and knowledge, and the role of political interest-and looks at how their importance has varied over time. Similarly, it examines the role of conservative political opinion on attitudes toward science. To do so, it uses a novel data set that includes eight waves of a survey that were fielded over a period of 49 years in France. While people are more educated, have access to more information, and are less religious, the importance of these factors appears to have diminished over time. At the same time, aggregate trends in anti-science and science-skeptical attitudes are not clear-cut. The article shows that anti-science and science-skeptical attitudes have become more difficult to explain over time.</p>","PeriodicalId":48094,"journal":{"name":"Public Understanding of Science","volume":" ","pages":"868-883"},"PeriodicalIF":3.3,"publicationDate":"2025-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143701580","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":"From climate scepticism to discourses of delay in UK editorials.","authors":"Sylvia Hayes, Josh Gabbatiss, Catherine Butler","doi":"10.1177/09636625251315446","DOIUrl":"10.1177/09636625251315446","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>News media has long been recognised for its important role in shaping public discourse and socio-political action relating to climate change. This is particularly true of opinion journalism, which reflects elite voices. Within the climate change communications literature, an important shift marks a turn away from outright denial of the existence of climate change towards delaying narratives. In this paper, we use a longitudinal mixed-methods analysis to chart 'discourses of delay' in editorials relating not only directly to climate change but to the closely connected issue of energy transitions across seventeen UK daily and weekly newspapers over the period 2011-2021. Though we find both a trend away from outright denial of climate change and an identifiable increase in support for climate action even among right-leaning editorials over this period, we also show that narratives are characterised by multiple discourses of delay across both climate change and various energy narratives.</p>","PeriodicalId":48094,"journal":{"name":"Public Understanding of Science","volume":" ","pages":"832-851"},"PeriodicalIF":3.3,"publicationDate":"2025-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12449614/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143606631","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":"Can homeopathy cure all diseases? Subgroups of homeopathy users based on beliefs about whether and how homeopathy should be used to treat serious conditions.","authors":"Luisa Liekefett, Julia C Becker","doi":"10.1177/09636625251332524","DOIUrl":"10.1177/09636625251332524","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Can homeopathy cure all diseases? Depending on whom you ask, answers to this question might be very different. This research investigates what homeopathy users believe about (a) whether and how homeopathy should be used to treat serious conditions like cancer, and (b) science and the relevance of scientific evidence regarding homeopathy. Using latent profile analysis (N = 225), we identify subgroups of homeopathy users that differ in their normative beliefs about the use of homeopathy in serious conditions: supporters of standalone use of homeopathy in serious conditions (~9%), those who are open toward standalone use (~43%), supporters of supplementary use (~35%), and supporters of both supplementary use and nonuse in serious conditions (~13%). Subgroups that supported or were open toward the standalone use of homeopathy in serious conditions held the most negative attitudes toward science. These findings are relevant for interventions aiming to prevent the risks associated with homeopathy use.</p>","PeriodicalId":48094,"journal":{"name":"Public Understanding of Science","volume":" ","pages":"949-960"},"PeriodicalIF":3.3,"publicationDate":"2025-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12449590/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144020625","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":"Follow the metrics? How does social media affect the journalistic practices of digital science communication start-ups?","authors":"Jing Yang, Xizhu Xiao, Jianbin Jin","doi":"10.1177/09636625251325658","DOIUrl":"10.1177/09636625251325658","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The influence of social media platforms on content production has been widely discussed in journalism studies, yet there remains limited research on its specific impact on science communication. This Chinese case study explores how social media logic affects the practices of digital science communication within a leading start-up in the field. Using in-depth interviews and participant observation, the study examines how key components of social media logic-such as engagement metrics and the drive to avoid invisibility-shape content production. The findings reveal that these influences intertwine with other factors, including platform regulations, creating a complex environment for content creation. This research offers insights into the broader implications for science communication and highlights potential avenues for future inquiry.</p>","PeriodicalId":48094,"journal":{"name":"Public Understanding of Science","volume":" ","pages":"884-900"},"PeriodicalIF":3.3,"publicationDate":"2025-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143651373","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":"The journalistic understanding of science as process and social system: A qualitative exploration in the German science journalism community.","authors":"Tobias Kreutzer, Frauke Domgörgen, David Kaldewey, Pascal Berger, Holger Wormer","doi":"10.1177/09636625251326508","DOIUrl":"10.1177/09636625251326508","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>While surveys on public understandings of science are common, little is known about how science and its processes are perceived and reported by journalists. However, knowledge about processual aspects of science is crucial when estimating the trustworthiness of experts and levels of evidence. Science journalists function not only as translators but also as critical observers of science, shaping the overall picture of science and ideally strengthening the public's judgment. To unfold the shape of such process-oriented science journalism, we investigate the understanding of science in the German science journalism community in the aftermath of COVID-19. We find an advanced understanding of scientific processes among participants of five focus group discussions and a preceding survey. The science journalists show a high level of general trust in scientific institutions and see informing and contextualizing as their main professional tasks. Some emphasis on quantitative studies and some reservations about politicized science and certain disciplines become visible.</p>","PeriodicalId":48094,"journal":{"name":"Public Understanding of Science","volume":" ","pages":"916-929"},"PeriodicalIF":3.3,"publicationDate":"2025-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12449597/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144056819","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}