Study Notes on Communicating Science in Social Settings by Dietram Scheufele

Author: Dietram A. Scheufele, Department of Life Sciences Communication, College of Agricultural and Life Sciences, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI.
Edited by: Baruch Fischhoff, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA.
Submission Dates: Received April 29, 2013; Accepted July 1, 2013.
Publication: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, August 20, 2013, Volume 110, Supplement 3.

This essay investigates the challenges of communicating modern science in social contexts.
Key challenges include:
  - Varying public preparedness to understand scientific breakthroughs.
  - Deterioration of traditional media infrastructures.
  - Complexity of emerging technologies intertwined with ethical, legal, and social implications.
The essay identifies four areas where empirical social science clarifies assumptions about science communication.
It also outlines a future agenda for scientists to enhance public communication efforts.

The disconnect between scientific discourse and public debate is not new; historical examples include Galileo Galilei's conflict with the Roman Inquisition.
In modern democracies:
- Public engagement is crucial for decision-making on science funding, usage, and regulation.
- Democratic infrastructures can challenge acceptance of scientific consensus, like evolution.

Public Acceptance of Science: Fact vs. Belief
- Comparative surveys show a higher percentage of American adults (one in three) rejecting evolution compared to western Europe.
Knowledge Levels
  - National Science Board's bi-annual trend surveys show a stable knowledge level, with an average correct response of 63% to basic scientific questions amongst US adults from 1992 to 2010.
  - Survey findings include:
    - 73% could identify that the Earth revolves around the Sun.
    - 63% understood the time it takes for Earth's revolution.
  - More concerning, only 66% understood probability, 51% defined an experiment correctly, and merely 18% could describe scientific study components accurately.

Postnormal Science
  - Characterized by uncertainties in scientific facts, values in dispute, high stakes, and urgent decisions.
  - Example: Nanotechnology
    - Involves the manipulation of materials at a scale of 1–100 nanometers.
    - Over 1,500 consumer products available; however, significant uncertainties remain regarding engineered nanomaterials and their risks.
  - Conveys the complexities of rapidly developing disciplines like Nano-Bio-Info-Cogno (NBIC) convergence.

Decline of Traditional Media
  - Shift from print and broadcast media towards online sources for scientific information, notably among younger audiences.
  - In 2010, 35% of Americans relied on the Internet for news; 34% used television.
  - News Coverage Trends
    - Significant reduction in dedicated science sections in newspapers: from 95 in 1989 to just 19 in 2013.
    - Lack of trained science journalists leads to concerns over proper and engaging scientific communication to the public.

Communication breakdowns can lead to negative impacts on markets and policies.
Example: Publication in Nature about the effects of Bt corn on butterfly larvae diminished public support and affected the market for associated biotechnology.
Case Study: The “Frankenfood” Campaign
- Greenpeace’s campaign utilized culturally resonant images and metaphors, affecting public perception of genetically modified foods.
- The portrayal of scientists can invoke cultural schemas that disengage the public, as shown in the controversial Bt corn debate.

Assumption 1: Knowledge Deficits
- Incorrectly assumes that knowledge deficits are the primary reason for lack of public support for science.
- Empirical studies suggest that higher knowledge does not always correlate with increased support for science; factors such as trust, authority, and involvement matter more.
Assumption 2: Trust Levels
- Data shows stable or increasing trust levels in scientists, despite partisan divides in opinions about scientific topics,
- Trust correlates more robustly with deference to scientific authority and education levels than with short-term fluctuations in public opinion.
Assumption 3: Role of Mass Media
- The media does not merely inform; it frames issues and can polarize public opinion.
- The decline in attention to science news reflects broader trends of media consumption shifting away from traditional formats.
Assumption 4: Isolation from Personal Values
- Ethical, legal, and social implications of science cannot be divorced from personal values.
- Individuals filter scientific information based on their values, biases, and worldviews, impacting their support for scientific issues.

Effective science communication must reflect empirical understanding of the public’s cognitive frames and decision-making processes.
Challenges point to a need for stronger collaboration between social and natural scientists to inform policy and public understanding.
Addressing the gaps between knowledge and public attitudes toward science may rely on understanding the multifaceted influences surrounding values and information processing.
Institutions should invest in developing frameworks that intertwine social and natural scientific knowledge to foster informed public engagement with emerging technologies.

Continued dialog between scientists, communicators, and policymakers is essential for improving the interfaces between science and society.
Emphasis on empirical research can refine strategies for effectively engaging diverse audiences about scientific advancements and ethical dilemmas they present.