Suchergebnisse

This book asks and answers the question of what communication research and other social sciences can offer that will help the global community to address climate change by identifying the conditions that can persuade audiences and encourage collective action on climate. While scientists often expect that teaching people the scientific facts will change their minds about climate change, closer analysis suggests this is not always the case. Communication scholars are pursuing other ideas based on what we know about influence and persuasion, but this approach does not provide complete answers either. Some misconceptions can be corrected by education, and some messages will be more powerful than others. The advent of the Internet also makes vast stores of information readily available. But audiences still process this information through different filters, based on their own values and beliefs - including their understanding of how science works. In between momentous events, media coverage of climate tends to recede and individuals turn their attention back to their daily lives. Yet there is a path forward: Climate change is a social justice issue that no individual - and no nation - can solve on their own. A different sort of communication effort can help. Effective reactions to climate change require collective, ultimately global, responses. Susanna Priest makes this argument eloquently and, through an adept evidentiary look at journalistic and strategic communication processes, sets the stage for building a strong societal demand for climate solutions. Sharon Dunwoody, Evjue-Bascom Professor Emerita of Journalism and Mass Communication, University of Wisconsin-Madison *** Communication and other social processes are the essence of science, and Susanna Priest applies that principle to communication about climate science. She makes a strong argument that we will only achieve successful climate communication when we recognize the collective, communal nature of climate knowledge. Individual knowledge and actions aren't enough; we must adapt communication research and action to focus on climate change as a social problem. Bruce V. Lewenstein, Professor of Science Communication and Chair, Department of Science & Technology Studies, Cornell University *** Susanna Priest provides a concise but comprehensive look at climate change communication. This book provides an invaluable overview of relevant research and theory, from cognitive processes to social dynamics, an ...

Increasing public knowledge of science is a widely recognized goal, but what that knowledge might consist of is rarely unpacked. Existing measures of science literacy tend to focus on textbook knowledge of science. Yet constructing a meaningful list of facts, even facts in application, is not only difficult but less than satisfying as an indicator of what people actually know—or need to know—as citizens. Revisiting this concept from a more sociological perspective yields a rather different concept that is here termed "critical science literacy." The implications of this reconsideration for thinking about citizen perspectives, for the work of science journalists and other professional interpreters, and for the design and evaluation of new approaches to science communication are explored.

International audience ; This exploratory study of Canadian and US public opinion about gene technologies is based primarily on survey data collected by the Government of Canada, with media data from a widely available commercial database (LexisNexis) used in an illustrative case study of the apparent resonance between the climate of opinion and media frames in different regions of the two countries. The study uses regression modeling, factor analysis and cluster analysis to characterize the structure of the opinion data, concluding that observed opinion differences might be understood in terms of the greater number of individuals in the United States who belong to an identifiable opinion group that believes these technologies are benign and must be developed (termed, for convenience, "true believers"), as well as a somewhat greater number in Canada who belong to a group believing that ordinary people should be able to decide based on ethical considerations ("ethical populists"). However, the most common group in each country is made up of people who believe risks or costs and benefits should be weighed in developing policy, and that this should be done by experts ("utilitarians"). This group and two other cluster groups identified in the analysis ("moral authoritarians" and "democratic pragmatists") exist in roughly equivalent proportions in both countries, with some regional variation evident within each. While these observations represent descriptive findings only, they nevertheless underscore the complexity of the opinion climate and problematize the development of consensus policy. Preliminary analysis of news coverage of selected gene technologies revealed both similarities and differences in patterns of news discourse between Canada and the US. A sample of stem cell coverage for February 2004, following the American Association for the Advancement of Science meeting in Seattle (during which the announcement of new Korean research on human cloning was made), was used as a case study for a pilot media ...

This exploratory study of Canadian and US public opinion about gene technologies is based primarily on survey data collected by the Government of Canada, with media data from a widely available commercial database (LexisNexis) used in an illustrative case study of the apparent resonance between the climate of opinion and media frames in different regions of the two countries. The study uses regression modeling, factor analysis and cluster analysis to characterize the structure of the opinion data, concluding that observed opinion differences might be understood in terms of the greater number of individuals in the United States who belong to an identifiable opinion group that believes these technologies are benign and must be developed (termed, for convenience, "true believers"), as well as a somewhat greater number in Canada who belong to a group believing that ordinary people should be able to decide based on ethical considerations ("ethical populists"). However, the most common group in each country is made up of people who believe risks or costs and benefits should be weighed in developing policy, and that this should be done by experts ("utilitarians"). This group and two other cluster groups identified in the analysis ("moral authoritarians" and "democratic pragmatists") exist in roughly equivalent proportions in both countries, with some regional variation evident within each. While these observations represent descriptive findings only, they nevertheless underscore the complexity of the opinion climate and problematize the development of consensus policy. Preliminary analysis of news coverage of selected gene technologies revealed both similarities and differences in patterns of news discourse between Canada and the US. A sample of stem cell coverage for February 2004, following the American Association for the Advancement of Science meeting in Seattle (during which the announcement of new Korean research on human cloning was made), was used as a case study for a pilot media analysis.

Using results from the 1999 Eurobarometer survey and a parallel telephone survey done in the United States in 2000, this study explored the relationship between levels of knowledge, educational levels, and degrees of encouragement for biotechnology development across a number of medical and agricultural applications. This cross‐cultural exploration found only weak relationships among these variables, calling into question the common assumption that higher science literacy produces greater acceptance (whether or not mediated by lower perceived risk). The relationship between encouragement and trust in specific social institutions was also weak. However, regression analysis based on "trust gap" variables (defined as numerical differences between trust in specific pairs of actors) did predict national levels of encouragement for several applications, suggesting an opinion formation climate in which audiences are actively choosing among competing claims. Differences between European and U.S. reactions to biotechnology appear to be a result of different trust and especially "trust gap" patterns, rather than differences in knowledge or education.

"From climate to vaccination, stem-cell research to evolution, scientific work is often the subject of public controversies in which scientists and science communicators find themselves enmeshed. Especially with such hot-button topics, science communication plays vital roles. Gathering together the work of a multidisciplinary, international collection of scholars, the editors of Ethics and Practice in Science Communication present an enlightening dialogue involving these communities, one that articulates the often differing objectives and ethical responsibilities communicators face in bringing a range of scientific knowledge to the wider world. In three sections--how ethics matters, professional practice, and case studies--contributors to this volume explore the many complex questions surrounding the communication of scientific results to nonscientists. Has the science been shared clearly and accurately? Have questions of risk, uncertainty, and appropriate representation been adequately addressed? And, most fundamentally, what is the purpose of communicating science to the public: Is it to inform and empower? Or to persuade--to influence behavior and policy? By inspiring scientists and science communicators alike to think more deeply about their work, this book reaffirms that the integrity of the communication of science is vital to a healthy relationship between science and society today"--The publisher

This article reports results from a three‐year panel study of a nonrandom sample of 76 South Carolina citizens, recruited from a variety of walks of life, and their impressions of emerging nanotechnology. This discussion focuses on material from depth interviews conducted alongside a baseline opinion and awareness inventory at the beginning of the study, the most intensive data‐gathering phase. These results are placed in the context of data from three additional surveys conducted at about equal intervals over the three years, plus exit interviews from 21 of the 34 individuals who completed the entire study. The results give insight into popular thinking about technology but little indication of strong emerging concerns, a trajectory of amplification of those concerns, or opinion polarization over time, despite some awareness of risks and potential ethical dimensions. Nanotechnology may stand out more as an example of risk attenuation than of risk amplification, consistent with most results from national surveys.

We examine international public opinion towards stem-cell research during the period when the issue was at its most contentious. We draw upon representative sample surveys in Europe and North America, fielded in 2005 and find that the majority of people in Europe, Canada and the United States supported stem-cell research, providing it was tightly regulated, but that there were key differences between the geographical regions in the relative importance of different types of ethical position. In the U.S., moral acceptability was more influential as a driver of support for stem-cell research; in Europe the perceived benefit to society carried more weight; and in Canada the two were almost equally important. We also find that public opinion on stem-cell research was more strongly associated with religious convictions in the U.S. than in Canada and Europe, although many strongly religious citizens in all regions approved of stem-cell research. We conclude that if anything public opinion or 'public ethics' are likely to play an increasingly important role in framing policy and regulatory regimes for sensitive technologies in the future.