Week 1
What’s next for science communication? Promising directions and
lingering distractions (Nisbett & Scheufele)
Over the past few years, there have been signs of a gradual shift in how the scientific
community in the US views public engagement. Yet despite notable new directions, many
communication efforts continue to be based on intuition-driven approaches, paying little
attention to interdisciplinary research on what makes for effective public engagement.
Myths about public communication: Historically, a prevailing assumption has been that
ignorance is at the root of social conflict over science. Science media should be used to
educate the public about the technical details of the matter in dispute. Once citizens are
brought up to speed on the science, they will be more likely to judge scientific issues as
scientists do and controversy will go away (deficit model; process of transmission).
The assumptions of the deficit model cut against the conclusions of several decades of
research (i.e. science literacy only accounts for a small fraction of the variance in how lay
publics form opinions about controversial areas of science; more about ideology or religious
identity). Given these realities, to focus on science literacy as both the cause and the solution
to failures in public communication remains a major distraction for science organizations.
Furthermore, there is little reason to expect that traditional popular science approaches if
applied to informing a wider public about science will ever be effective. These initiatives instead
tend to reach a small audience of already informed science enthusiasts. The reason is that
individuals are ‘cognitive misers’ (the human mind often seeks to avoid spending cognitive
effort, taking mental shortcuts). The media system (increase in content choices & less money
investing in science writers in newsrooms) further exacerbates this human tendency.
Never well understood, but always deeply respected: Science literacy has very little to do with
public perceptions. Instead, driving public opinion are strong frames. Findings show
contradictions to the claim that science illiteracy threatens the cultural status of science. Public
faith remains virtually unchanged.
From transmission to dialogue: Critique on the deficit model in the 1990s: a scientist found that
feelings of skepticism against science were filtered by feelings of distrust and
communication mistakes by scientists, not by ignorance. In 2000, science institutions were
urged to move beyond just a one-way transmission model of science communication toward a
new focus on deliberative contexts where a variety of stakeholders could participate in a
dialogue and exchange of views about science policy. Through initiatives like focus groups,
studies find that participants not only learn directly about the technical aspects of the science
involved, they also learn about the social, ethical, and economic implications of the scientific
topic. These public consultation initiatives can also be conceived of as governing mechanisms
that democratize science It is argued that public consultation should not occur too late:
engagement when science or technology is in its formative stage.
Framing and public engagement: An unfortunate limitation to public dialogue initiatives is their
small scale and scope. More intensive resources are needed. In combination with these public
consultation efforts, scientists and their organizations must also learn to focus on framing their
messages in ways that activate participation from otherwise inattentive publics, while
discovering new media platforms for reaching these nontraditional audiences. ‘Frames’ are
the conceptual term for interpretative storylines that communicate what is at stake in a science-
related debate and why the issue matters. Frames help simplify complex issues by lending
greater weight to certain conversations and arguments over others, translating why an issue
might be a problem, who or what might be responsible, and what should be done. In this
manner, frames provide common points of references for groups and meaning between
science, the media and key publics.
At a psychological level, a message frame is only effective if it is applicable to a specific,
existing interpretative schema acquired through socialization processes or other types of social
,learning. Successful framing suggests a linkage between two concepts or things. At a
sociological level, to make sense of political issues, citizens use as resources the frames
available in media coverage, but integrate these packages with the frames forged by way of
personal experience or conversations with others.
Through new forms of user-centered and user-controlled digital media such as blogs, online
video, and social media sites, bottom-up alternative frames may be gaining greater influence
in the discursive contest that surround issues such as climate change.
Ethics, outcome, and generalizable meanings: Framing is an unavoidable reality of the science
communication process. It is a mistake to believe that there can be ‘unframed’ information.
Effective framing can result in a range of positive outcomes (like more motivation and interest
from the audience towards science, prioritizing dialogue, avoiding hype, avoiding denigration
of social groups). Framing should not be seen as a strategy for selling the public on science,
but rather as a means for constructively shifting the conversation about an issue.
Explanations how framing applies to the communication dynamics of debates over:
• Climate change: has historically been framed in ways that reinforces partisan divisions
while undermining widespread public concern. For example, it was framed as
Pandora’s box (instead of uncertainty and economic development frame):
emphasis on climate crisis. There was skepticism against this alarmism, people stayed
in the scientific uncertainty box.
• Evolution: People wanted to tell people that alternatives to evolution were inappropriate
for science class. First, there was a focus on the public accountability frame
(emphasizing past legal decisions and separation of church and state). This was not
working. Second, they used the social progress frame: seeing evolutionary science
as the modern building block for advances in medicine and agriculture and a
compromise frame: position that evolution and religious faith can be fully compatible.
However, the loudest voice (frame) is the conflict frame: the readily available heuristic
for the wider public is that science is in fact a threat to religious identity.
• Nanotechnology: A popular frame being used is nanotechnology as ‘the asbestos of
tomorrow’. As a frame device, this analogy is particularly powerful because it activates
two culturally shared schemas in people’s minds: it triggers a public accountability
link (the absence of regulatory oversight of asbestos in the past) and the Pandora’s
box (their might be unknown long-term effects)
Directions forward: Several recommendations for new directions in public communication:
• Graduate training and new interdisciplinary degree programs: College and doctoral
students majoring in the sciences should be offered courses and training in
communication. Furthermore, there is also the demand for new interdisciplinary degree
, programs that combine course work in communication, the sciences, policy/law,
sociology and other fields. Some say that scientists should stick to science. However,
this is not an ideal world. Scientists are responsible for setting communication policy.
• Public dialogue that matters: To enhance public participation, significant resources
need to be spent on sampling, recruitment, and turnout. Furthermore, another strategy
is to pair expert testimony and deliberation with the viewing of a documentary or series
of short films.
• Data should trump intuition: Efforts to use the media and communication campaigns to
engage the public on science need to adapt to the realities of today’s information
environment (more new information technologies should be used). There should be
used public opinion research, to understand and communicate effectively.
• Connecting to public values: Connecting a scientific topic to something the public
already values or prioritizes, conveying personal relevance.
• ‘Going broad’: Beyond elite audiences: Many traditional approaches favored elite
audiences. There is a need for media strategies for ‘going broad’ with science-related
content, generating attention and interest among non-elite audiences. New
documentary genres and storytelling techniques might be an important mechanism for
going broad.
• ‘Going deep’: Participatory, localized media: Many communities lack the type of
relevant news and information that is needed to adapt to environmental challenges or
to go reach collective choices (due to local newspapers cutting meaningful coverage in
the area). Government agencies should fund public television and radio organizations.
• Science media literacy curriculum: This will not only lead to a growing audience for
science media, but also leads to impart the skills, motivation and know-how that
students need to be participatory citizens.
• Opinion leader campaigns that bridge audience gaps: Science organizations need to
mobilize specially trained opinion leaders who can bridge the communication gap
between news coverage and inattentive audiences. We know that these science
opinion leaders exist and can be recruited.
Conclusion: We live in an era where most policy debates relevant to science and emerging
technologies are not simply technical issues. Rather, they are collectively decided at the
intersection of politics, values, and expert knowledge. Under these conditions, sophisticated
public outreach and engagement are essential. Yet public communication and engagement
should not be conceived of as simply a way to ‘sell’ the public on the importance of science or
to persuade the public to view scientific debates as scientists do.
Informing, involving or engaging? Science communication, in the
ages of atom- bio- and nanotechnology (Kurath & Gisler)
1. Introduction
There has been a shift observed in science and technology communication toward an
increased democratic involvement of society in Western democracies in the last two decades.
There is a more exchange and mutual learning approach to public involvement at an earlier
stage of technology development (also called upstream engagement). Asking whether the
turn toward more democratic involvement of citizens has really taken place in NST-related
(nanoscale sciences and technology) public engagement projects, this article gives a historical
overview of science communication related to three major European technology debates of
the twentieth and the early twenty-first centuries, including public understanding of science
(PUS), participatory technology assessment (PTA) such as dialogue, consensus
conferences and focus groups, and upstream engagement.
2. Atoms, authorities and acceptance building
After WW2 the problematic reputation of the sciences and an expanding scientific enterprise
in need of more public funding led to the initiation of and significant increase in science advisory
What’s next for science communication? Promising directions and
lingering distractions (Nisbett & Scheufele)
Over the past few years, there have been signs of a gradual shift in how the scientific
community in the US views public engagement. Yet despite notable new directions, many
communication efforts continue to be based on intuition-driven approaches, paying little
attention to interdisciplinary research on what makes for effective public engagement.
Myths about public communication: Historically, a prevailing assumption has been that
ignorance is at the root of social conflict over science. Science media should be used to
educate the public about the technical details of the matter in dispute. Once citizens are
brought up to speed on the science, they will be more likely to judge scientific issues as
scientists do and controversy will go away (deficit model; process of transmission).
The assumptions of the deficit model cut against the conclusions of several decades of
research (i.e. science literacy only accounts for a small fraction of the variance in how lay
publics form opinions about controversial areas of science; more about ideology or religious
identity). Given these realities, to focus on science literacy as both the cause and the solution
to failures in public communication remains a major distraction for science organizations.
Furthermore, there is little reason to expect that traditional popular science approaches if
applied to informing a wider public about science will ever be effective. These initiatives instead
tend to reach a small audience of already informed science enthusiasts. The reason is that
individuals are ‘cognitive misers’ (the human mind often seeks to avoid spending cognitive
effort, taking mental shortcuts). The media system (increase in content choices & less money
investing in science writers in newsrooms) further exacerbates this human tendency.
Never well understood, but always deeply respected: Science literacy has very little to do with
public perceptions. Instead, driving public opinion are strong frames. Findings show
contradictions to the claim that science illiteracy threatens the cultural status of science. Public
faith remains virtually unchanged.
From transmission to dialogue: Critique on the deficit model in the 1990s: a scientist found that
feelings of skepticism against science were filtered by feelings of distrust and
communication mistakes by scientists, not by ignorance. In 2000, science institutions were
urged to move beyond just a one-way transmission model of science communication toward a
new focus on deliberative contexts where a variety of stakeholders could participate in a
dialogue and exchange of views about science policy. Through initiatives like focus groups,
studies find that participants not only learn directly about the technical aspects of the science
involved, they also learn about the social, ethical, and economic implications of the scientific
topic. These public consultation initiatives can also be conceived of as governing mechanisms
that democratize science It is argued that public consultation should not occur too late:
engagement when science or technology is in its formative stage.
Framing and public engagement: An unfortunate limitation to public dialogue initiatives is their
small scale and scope. More intensive resources are needed. In combination with these public
consultation efforts, scientists and their organizations must also learn to focus on framing their
messages in ways that activate participation from otherwise inattentive publics, while
discovering new media platforms for reaching these nontraditional audiences. ‘Frames’ are
the conceptual term for interpretative storylines that communicate what is at stake in a science-
related debate and why the issue matters. Frames help simplify complex issues by lending
greater weight to certain conversations and arguments over others, translating why an issue
might be a problem, who or what might be responsible, and what should be done. In this
manner, frames provide common points of references for groups and meaning between
science, the media and key publics.
At a psychological level, a message frame is only effective if it is applicable to a specific,
existing interpretative schema acquired through socialization processes or other types of social
,learning. Successful framing suggests a linkage between two concepts or things. At a
sociological level, to make sense of political issues, citizens use as resources the frames
available in media coverage, but integrate these packages with the frames forged by way of
personal experience or conversations with others.
Through new forms of user-centered and user-controlled digital media such as blogs, online
video, and social media sites, bottom-up alternative frames may be gaining greater influence
in the discursive contest that surround issues such as climate change.
Ethics, outcome, and generalizable meanings: Framing is an unavoidable reality of the science
communication process. It is a mistake to believe that there can be ‘unframed’ information.
Effective framing can result in a range of positive outcomes (like more motivation and interest
from the audience towards science, prioritizing dialogue, avoiding hype, avoiding denigration
of social groups). Framing should not be seen as a strategy for selling the public on science,
but rather as a means for constructively shifting the conversation about an issue.
Explanations how framing applies to the communication dynamics of debates over:
• Climate change: has historically been framed in ways that reinforces partisan divisions
while undermining widespread public concern. For example, it was framed as
Pandora’s box (instead of uncertainty and economic development frame):
emphasis on climate crisis. There was skepticism against this alarmism, people stayed
in the scientific uncertainty box.
• Evolution: People wanted to tell people that alternatives to evolution were inappropriate
for science class. First, there was a focus on the public accountability frame
(emphasizing past legal decisions and separation of church and state). This was not
working. Second, they used the social progress frame: seeing evolutionary science
as the modern building block for advances in medicine and agriculture and a
compromise frame: position that evolution and religious faith can be fully compatible.
However, the loudest voice (frame) is the conflict frame: the readily available heuristic
for the wider public is that science is in fact a threat to religious identity.
• Nanotechnology: A popular frame being used is nanotechnology as ‘the asbestos of
tomorrow’. As a frame device, this analogy is particularly powerful because it activates
two culturally shared schemas in people’s minds: it triggers a public accountability
link (the absence of regulatory oversight of asbestos in the past) and the Pandora’s
box (their might be unknown long-term effects)
Directions forward: Several recommendations for new directions in public communication:
• Graduate training and new interdisciplinary degree programs: College and doctoral
students majoring in the sciences should be offered courses and training in
communication. Furthermore, there is also the demand for new interdisciplinary degree
, programs that combine course work in communication, the sciences, policy/law,
sociology and other fields. Some say that scientists should stick to science. However,
this is not an ideal world. Scientists are responsible for setting communication policy.
• Public dialogue that matters: To enhance public participation, significant resources
need to be spent on sampling, recruitment, and turnout. Furthermore, another strategy
is to pair expert testimony and deliberation with the viewing of a documentary or series
of short films.
• Data should trump intuition: Efforts to use the media and communication campaigns to
engage the public on science need to adapt to the realities of today’s information
environment (more new information technologies should be used). There should be
used public opinion research, to understand and communicate effectively.
• Connecting to public values: Connecting a scientific topic to something the public
already values or prioritizes, conveying personal relevance.
• ‘Going broad’: Beyond elite audiences: Many traditional approaches favored elite
audiences. There is a need for media strategies for ‘going broad’ with science-related
content, generating attention and interest among non-elite audiences. New
documentary genres and storytelling techniques might be an important mechanism for
going broad.
• ‘Going deep’: Participatory, localized media: Many communities lack the type of
relevant news and information that is needed to adapt to environmental challenges or
to go reach collective choices (due to local newspapers cutting meaningful coverage in
the area). Government agencies should fund public television and radio organizations.
• Science media literacy curriculum: This will not only lead to a growing audience for
science media, but also leads to impart the skills, motivation and know-how that
students need to be participatory citizens.
• Opinion leader campaigns that bridge audience gaps: Science organizations need to
mobilize specially trained opinion leaders who can bridge the communication gap
between news coverage and inattentive audiences. We know that these science
opinion leaders exist and can be recruited.
Conclusion: We live in an era where most policy debates relevant to science and emerging
technologies are not simply technical issues. Rather, they are collectively decided at the
intersection of politics, values, and expert knowledge. Under these conditions, sophisticated
public outreach and engagement are essential. Yet public communication and engagement
should not be conceived of as simply a way to ‘sell’ the public on the importance of science or
to persuade the public to view scientific debates as scientists do.
Informing, involving or engaging? Science communication, in the
ages of atom- bio- and nanotechnology (Kurath & Gisler)
1. Introduction
There has been a shift observed in science and technology communication toward an
increased democratic involvement of society in Western democracies in the last two decades.
There is a more exchange and mutual learning approach to public involvement at an earlier
stage of technology development (also called upstream engagement). Asking whether the
turn toward more democratic involvement of citizens has really taken place in NST-related
(nanoscale sciences and technology) public engagement projects, this article gives a historical
overview of science communication related to three major European technology debates of
the twentieth and the early twenty-first centuries, including public understanding of science
(PUS), participatory technology assessment (PTA) such as dialogue, consensus
conferences and focus groups, and upstream engagement.
2. Atoms, authorities and acceptance building
After WW2 the problematic reputation of the sciences and an expanding scientific enterprise
in need of more public funding led to the initiation of and significant increase in science advisory
