Scientists’ Prioritization of Communication Objectives for Public Engagement

Amid calls from scientific leaders for their colleagues to become more effective public communicators, this study examines the objectives that scientists’ report drive their public engagement behaviors. We explore how scientists evaluate five specific communication objectives, which include informing the public about science, exciting the public about science, strengthening the public’s trust in science, tailoring messages about science, and defending science from misinformation. We use insights from extant research, the theory of planned behavior, and procedural justice theory to identify likely predictors of scientists'' views about these communication objectives. Results show that scientists most prioritize communication designed to defend science from misinformation and educate the public about science, and least prioritize communication that seeks to build trust and establish resonance with the public. Regression analyses reveal factors associated with scientists who prioritize each of the five specific communication objectives. Our findings highlight the need for communication trainers to help scientists select specific communication objectives for particular contexts and audiences.     

Scientific Citizenship and good governance: implications for biotechnology

In the wake of public distrust regarding biotechnology, it has been suggested that the debate should be moved "upstream", whereby the public help to set research priorities. Although many scientists see this as an illogical reaction to a loss of faith in science, we argue that the boundaries between science and its technological applications have become blurred and this produces conflicts of interests that have led to this crisis of trust. Furthermore, this distrust is also a crisis in governance that calls for a new open and democratic approach to scientific research. We propose that the concept of Scientific Citizenship, based on good governance, will help to restore public trust and bridge the gap between science and the society that it serves. Integral to this is the suggestion that the governance of science forms part of the training for scientists.     

Broadening the voice of science: Promoting scientific communication in the undergraduate classroom

Effective and accurate communication of scientific findings is essential. Unfortunately, scientists are not always well trained in how to best communicate their results with other scientists nor do all appreciate the importance of speaking with the public. Here, we provide an example of how the development of oral communication skills can be integrated with research experiences at the undergraduate level. We describe our experiences developing, running, and evaluating a course for undergraduates that complemented their existing undergraduate research experiences with instruction on the nature of science and intensive training on the development of science communication skills. Students delivered science talks, research monologues, and poster presentations about the ecological and evolutionary research in which they were involved. We evaluated the effectiveness of our approach using the CURE survey and a focus group. As expected, undergraduates reported strong benefits to communication skills and confidence. We provide guidance for college researchers, instructors, and administrators interested in motivating and equipping the next generation of scientists to be excellent science communicators.     

How to work with children and animals: A guide for school‐based citizen science in wildlife research

Engaging school students in wildlife research through citizen science projects can be a win–win for scientists and educators. Not only does it provide a way for scientists to gather new data, but it can also contribute to science education and help younger generations become more environmentally aware. However, wildlife research can be challenging in the best of circumstances, and there are few guidelines available to help scientists create successful citizen science projects for school students. This paper explores the opportunities and challenges faced when developing school‐based citizen science projects in wildlife research by synthesising two sources of information. First, we conducted a small, school‐based citizen science project that investigated the effects of supplementary feeding on urban birds as a case study. Second, we reviewed the literature to develop a database of school‐based citizen science projects that address questions in wildlife ecology and conservation. Based on these activities, we present five lessons for scientists considering a school‐based citizen science project. Overall, we found that school‐based citizen science projects must be carefully designed to ensure reliable data are collected, students remain engaged, and the project is achievable under the logistical constraints presented by conducting wildlife research in a school environment. Ultimately, we conclude that school‐based citizen science projects can be a powerful way of collecting wildlife data while also contributing to the education and development of environmentally aware students.     

The how and why of societal publications for citizen science projects and scientists

In the scientific community, the importance of communication to society is often underestimated. Scientists and scientific organisations often lack the skills to organise such communication effectively. The Dutch citizen science phenology network Nature’s Calendar has been successful in communicating to the general public via numerous newspaper articles, television appearances, presentations, websites and social media. We refer to these publications as societal publications. Due to active communication to mass media, we frequently reach millions of people. This communication helped us to involve thousands of volunteers in recording the timing of phenological events like the start of flowering, leaf unfolding and bird migration, but also several health-related events like hay fever symptoms and tick bites. In this paper, we analyse and present our experiences with the Nature’s Calendar project regarding societal publications. Based on this analysis, we explain the importance of societal publications for citizen science projects and scientists in general, and we show how scientists can increase the newsworthiness of scientific information and what factors and activities can increase the chances of media paying attention to this news. We show that societal publications help phenological networks by facilitating the recruitment, retention and instruction of observers. Furthermore, they stimulate the generation of new ideas and partners that lead to an increase in knowledge, awareness and behavioural change of the general public or specific stakeholders. They make projects, and scientists involved, better known to the public and increase their credibility and authority. Societal publications can catalyse the production of new publications, thereby enforcing the previous mentioned points.     

Science Educational Outreach Programs That Benefit Students and Scientists

Both scientists and the public would benefit from improved communication of basic scientific research and from integrating scientists into education outreach, but opportunities to support these efforts are limited. We have developed two low-cost programs—"Present Your PhD Thesis to a 12-Year-Old" and "Shadow a Scientist”—that combine training in science communication with outreach to area middle schools. We assessed the outcomes of these programs and found a 2-fold benefit: scientists improve their communication skills by explaining basic science research to a general audience, and students'' enthusiasm for science and their scientific knowledge are increased. Here we present details about both programs, along with our assessment of them, and discuss the feasibility of exporting these programs to other universities.     

Equivalence of citizen science and scientific data for modelling species distribution of birds from a tropical savanna

The Wallacean deficit continues to be a challenge to species distribution modelling. Although some authors have suggested that data collected by citizen scientists can be relevant for a better understanding of biodiversity, to our knowledge, no work has quantitatively tested the equivalence between scientific and citizen science data. Here, we investigate the hypothesis that data collected by citizen scientists can be equivalent to data collected by professional scientists when generating species spatial distribution models. For 42 bird species in the Cerrado region we generated and compared species distribution models based on three data sources: (1) scientific data, (2) citizen science data and (3) sample size corrected citizen science data. To test our hypothesis, we compared the equivalence of these datasets. We rejected the hypothesis of equivalence for about one-third (38%) of the evaluated species, revealing that, for most of the species considered, the models generated were equivalent irrespective of the data set used. The distances between centroids of the models that were equivalent were on average smaller than the distances between non-equivalent models. Also, the direction of change in the models showed no pattern, with no trend towards more populated regions. Our results show that the use of data collected by citizen scientists can be an ally in filling the Wallacean deficit gap. In fact, the lack of use of this wide range of data collected by citizen scientists seems to be an unjustified caution. We indicate the potential of using citizen science data for modelling the distribution of species, mainly due to the large set of data collected, which is impracticable for scientists alone to collect. Conservation measures will be favoured by the union of professional and amateur data, aiming for a better understanding of species distribution and, consequently, biodiversity conservation.     

A conceptual framework for understanding the perspectives on the causes of the science–practice gap in ecology and conservation

Applying scientific knowledge to confront societal challenges is a difficult task, an issue known as the science–practice gap. In Ecology and Conservation, scientific evidence has been seldom used directly to support decision‐making, despite calls for an increasing role of ecological science in developing solutions for a sustainable future. To date, multiple causes of the science–practice gap and diverse approaches to link science and practice in Ecology and Conservation have been proposed. To foster a transparent debate and broaden our understanding of the difficulties of using scientific knowledge, we reviewed the perceived causes of the science–practice gap, aiming to: (i) identify the perspectives of ecologists and conservation scientists on this problem, (ii) evaluate the predominance of these perspectives over time and across journals, and (iii) assess them in light of disciplines studying the role of science in decision‐making. We based our review on 1563 sentences describing causes of the science–practice gap extracted from 122 articles and on discussions with eight scientists on how to classify these sentences. The resulting process‐based framework describes three distinct perspectives on the relevant processes, knowledge and actors in the science–practice interface. The most common perspective assumes only scientific knowledge should support practice, perceiving a one‐way knowledge flow from science to practice and recognizing flaws in knowledge generation, communication, and/or use. The second assumes that both scientists and decision‐makers should contribute to support practice, perceiving a two‐way knowledge flow between science and practice through joint knowledge‐production/integration processes, which, for several reasons, are perceived to occur infrequently. The last perspective was very rare, and assumes scientists should put their results into practice, but they rarely do. Some causes (e.g. cultural differences between scientists and decision‐makers) are shared with other disciplines, while others seem specific to Ecology and Conservation (e.g. inadequate research scales). All identified causes require one of three general types of solutions, depending on whether the causal factor can (e.g. inadequate research questions) or cannot (e.g. scientific uncertainty) be changed, or if misconceptions (e.g. undervaluing abstract knowledge) should be solved. The unchanged predominance of the one‐way perspective over time may be associated with the prestige of evidence‐based conservation and suggests that debates in Ecology and Conservation lag behind trends in other disciplines towards bidirectional views ascribing larger roles to decision‐makers. In turn, the two‐way perspective seems primarily restricted to research traditions historically isolated from mainstream conservation biology. All perspectives represented superficial views of decision‐making by not accounting for limits to human rationality, complexity of decision‐making contexts, fuzzy science–practice boundaries, ambiguity brought about by science, and different types of knowledge use. However, joint knowledge‐production processes from the two‐way perspective can potentially allow for democratic decision‐making processes, explicit discussions of values and multiple types of science use. To broaden our understanding of the interface and foster productive science–practice linkages, we argue for dialogue among different research traditions within Ecology and Conservation, joint knowledge‐production processes between scientists and decision‐makers and interdisciplinarity across Ecology, Conservation and Political Science in both research and education.     

Making Science Accessible: A Semiotics of Scientific Communication

This article serves as a demonstration of how certain models of literary analysis, used to theorize and analyze fiction and narrative, can also be applied to scientific communication in such a manner as to promote the accessibility of science to the general public and a greater awareness of the methodology used in making scientific discovery. The approach of this article is based on the assumption that the principles of structuralism and semiotics can provide plausible explanations for the divide between the reception of science and literature. We provide a semiotic analysis of a scientific article that has had significant impact in the field of molecular biology with profound medical implications. Furthermore, we show how the structural and semiotic characteristics of literary texts are also evident in the scientific papers, and we address how these characteristics can be applied to scientific prose in order to propose a model of scientific communication that reaches the public. By applying this theoretical framework to the analysis of both scientific and literary communication, we establish parallels between primary scientific texts and literary prose.     

Sharing science: characteristics of effective scientist-teacher interactions

Despite national guidelines to reform K-12 science education, our students are not learning science any better. Conducted under the auspices of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, a symposium examined several programs where professional scientists interact with classroom teachers to improve science education. Symposium participants described their projects and discussed the factors that contribute or detract from each project's success. The events of this symposium are critically analyzed. Four themes emerged as issues that affect the successful implementation and continuation of science education reform projects: scientific literacy as a primary goal, personal characteristics and commitment of project partners, curricular change built on social and developmental goals, and the incentive/reward structures in universities and school systems. This review of the emergent themes places the opinions of the symposium participants into the larger context of a growing science education research literature to inform others about synergy between professional scientists and classroom teachers. Our aim is to help others learn about the characteristics of effective partnerships to improve science education.     

The PAL+ program, an incentive concerted action about malaria and associated infectious diseases, for developing countries

The French Ministry in charge of Research has launched a multi-institutional incentive concerted action to assist Southern countries on malaria: the PAL+ program. PAL+ aims at bringing out: 1) conditions to promote novel preventive and therapeutic tools adapted to existing situations in the countries concerned; 2) a contribution to help research teams in Southern countries become competitive. PAL+ plans to strengthen cooperative relationships with developing countries (subsaharian Africa, South East Asia and South American countries). Research programs were oriented towards public health needs in malaria-endemic countries and thus mainly focused on: i) development of new antimalarial drugs and new therapeutical strategies: new targets and new leads for drugs, clinical assays for recognition of malaria and optimization of effective treatment or prophylactic drug dosage; ii) pathophysiology of severe malaria: mechanisms of immunity, biology and genome of host and parasite and research leading to vaccine trials; iii) basic and field research on mosquito genetics and biology which may lead to new prevention and control opportunities; iv) social studies on behaviours and habits around prevention and medication of malaria. The objective is to help Southern countries increase their capacity in clinical research, epidemiology, therapeutics, public health and social science (e.g. behaviours and habits accompanying medicine-taking). This means a true partnership and training adapted to specific needs and based on sound science. Research was therefore largely pursued in the laboratories of Southern countries and PAL+ supported the initiative in different ways by: i) providing easier opportunities for scientists from the North to collaborate with scientists from the South; ii) supporting networks of scientist collaborations. This was achieved by setting up a new type of relationships between scientists, based on a continuous dialogue and on bringing them together in small meetings on thematic discussions, the so-called Ateliers de PAL+. The Ateliers should play a major role in increasing the scientific capacity in developing countries. PAL+ program is a commitment to speed up better understanding of the disease by helping endemic countries contribute to research for their own benefit.     

Safe and Sound? Scientists’ Understandings of Public Engagement in Emerging Biotechnologies

Science communication is a widely debated issue, particularly in the field of biotechnology. However, the views on the interface between science and society held by scientists who work in the field of emerging biotechnologies are currently insufficiently explored. Therefore filling this gap is one of the urgent desiderata in the further development of a dialogue-oriented model of science-public interaction. Against this background, this article addresses two main questions: (1) How do the persons who work in the field of science perceive the public and its involvement in science? (2) What preferred modes of communication are stressed by those scientists? This research is based on a set of interviews with full professors from the field of biotechnology with a special focus on synthetic biology. The results show that scientists perceive the public as holding a primarily risk-focused view of science. On the one hand, different forms of science communication are thereby either seen as a chance to improve the public acceptance of science in general and one field of research in particular. On the other hand, the exchange with the public is seen as a duty because the whole of society is affected by scientific innovation. Yet, some of the stakeholders’ views discussed here conflict with debates on public engagement in technological innovation.     

feedr and animalnexus.ca: A paired R package and user‐friendly Web application for transforming and visualizing animal movement data from static stations

Radio frequency identification (RFID) provides a simple and inexpensive approach for examining the movements of tagged animals, which can provide information on species behavior and ecology, such as habitat/resource use and social interactions. In addition, tracking animal movements is appealing to naturalists, citizen scientists, and the general public and thus represents a tool for public engagement in science and science education. Although a useful tool, the large amount of data collected using RFID may quickly become overwhelming. Here, we present an R package (feedr) we have developed for loading, transforming, and visualizing time‐stamped, georeferenced data, such as RFID data collected from static logger stations. Using our package, data can be transformed from raw RFID data to visits, presence (regular detections by a logger over time), movements between loggers, displacements, and activity patterns. In addition, we provide several conversion functions to allow users to format data for use in functions from other complementary R packages. Data can also be visualized through static or interactive maps or as animations over time. To increase accessibility, data can be transformed and visualized either through R directly, or through the companion site: http://animalnexus.ca , an online, user‐friendly, R‐based Shiny Web application. This system can be used by professional and citizen scientists alike to view and study animal movements. We have designed this package to be flexible and to be able to handle data collected from other stationary sources (e.g., hair traps, static very high frequency (VHF) telemetry loggers, observations of marked individuals in colonies or staging sites), and we hope this framework will become a meeting point for science, education, and community awareness of the movements of animals. We aim to inspire citizen engagement while simultaneously enabling robust scientific analysis.     

Creating a bubble…and an understanding of scientific practices

The use of creativity in science practices is many times lost on secondary students. Creativity is seen as something central to the arts and humanities, but tangential at best in the sciences. However, an examination of many great scientific discoveries and the work of everyday contemporary scientists shows the depth and breadth of the use of creativity in the scientific process. Creating a Bubble is an activity that can be used in a secondary classroom to help students understand not only the importance of creativity in science practices, but also the role of communication, the open-endedness of scientific endeavors, and the use of others’ ideas. Students are given a straw, Styrofoam cup, and dish soap and asked to create a big bubble consistently. At first, the techniques that are used produce many small bubbles. Eventually, someone asks how big a big bubble is. Armed with the knowledge that a big bubble is at least 33?cm (13-inches) in diameter, students become very creative in the techniques they try. They learn from each other and eventually are successful in their quest. Frustration and persistence are also key ingredients along their journey.     

The model of development of science by the example of limnology

Limnology--the science about lakes is the young and relatively closed area of studies; its existence is owing to several hundreds of scientists. The International Society of Limnologists holds its meetings since 1922. We used materials of these meetings to find out the main stages of development of this science; among these stages there were both fast and relatively calm periods. Based on analysis of these data, we constructed a model of development of the science, the same data being used for tuning and verification of the model. We have suggested that the main regularities and of development of limnology can be extrapolated to other sciences. The main "acting person" in the model is population of scientists. Each scientist, with some probability, can propose new ideas as well as use in his elaborations some particular complex of the already accumulated knowledge and ideas. The model also takes into consideration how the scientific information is spreading, specifically some individual peculiarities of model scientists, such as age, experience, communicability. After the model parameters had been chosen in such a way that is described adequately the development of limnology, we performed a series of experiments by changing some of the characteristics and obtained rather unexpected results published preliminary in the short work (Levchenko V. F and Menshutkin V. V. Int. J. Comp. Anticip. Syst., 2008, vol. 22, p. 63-75) and discussed here in the greater detail. It is revealed, that the development of science is passing irregularly and sharply decelerated at low level of scientists communication and absence of scientific schools, and that the age of "scientific youth" of scientist begins usually only after 40 years.     

Evaluating how we evaluate

Evaluation of scientific work underlies the process of career advancement in academic science, with publications being a fundamental metric. Many aspects of the evaluation process for grants and promotions are deeply ingrained in institutions and funding agencies and have been altered very little in the past several decades, despite substantial changes that have taken place in the scientific work force, the funding landscape, and the way that science is being conducted. This article examines how scientific productivity is being evaluated, what it is rewarding, where it falls short, and why richer information than a standard curriculum vitae/biosketch might provide a more accurate picture of scientific and educational contributions. The article also explores how the evaluation process exerts a profound influence on many aspects of the scientific enterprise, including the training of new scientists, the way in which grant resources are distributed, the manner in which new knowledge is published, and the culture of science itself.     

The Chilling Effect: How Do Researchers React to Controversy?

Background

Can political controversy have a “chilling effect” on the production of new science? This is a timely concern, given how often American politicians are accused of undermining science for political purposes. Yet little is known about how scientists react to these kinds of controversies.

Methods and Findings

Drawing on interview (n = 30) and survey data (n = 82), this study examines the reactions of scientists whose National Institutes of Health (NIH)-funded grants were implicated in a highly publicized political controversy. Critics charged that these grants were “a waste of taxpayer money.” The NIH defended each grant and no funding was rescinded. Nevertheless, this study finds that many of the scientists whose grants were criticized now engage in self-censorship. About half of the sample said that they now remove potentially controversial words from their grant and a quarter reported eliminating entire topics from their research agendas. Four researchers reportedly chose to move into more secure positions entirely, either outside academia or in jobs that guaranteed salaries. About 10% of the group reported that this controversy strengthened their commitment to complete their research and disseminate it widely.

Conclusions

These findings provide evidence that political controversies can shape what scientists choose to study. Debates about the politics of science usually focus on the direct suppression, distortion, and manipulation of scientific results. This study suggests that scholars must also examine how scientists may self-censor in response to political events.     

Improving the science-policy dialogue to meet the challenges of biodiversity conservation: having conversations rather than talking at one-another

A better, more effective dialogue is needed between biodiversity science and policy to underpin the sustainable use and conservation of biodiversity. Many initiatives exist to improve communication, but these largely conform to a ‘linear’ or technocratic model of communication in which scientific “facts” are transmitted directly to policy advisers to “solve problems”. While this model can help start a dialogue, it is, on its own, insufficient, as decision taking is complex, iterative and often selective in the information used. Here, we draw on the literature, interviews and a workshop with individuals working at the interface between biodiversity science and government policy development to present practical recommendations aimed at individuals, teams, organisations and funders. Building on these recommendations, we stress the need to: (a) frame research and policy jointly; (b) promote inter- and trans-disciplinary research and “multi-domain” working groups that include both scientists and policy makers from various fields and sectors; (c) put in place structures and incentive schemes that support interactive dialogue in the long-term. These are changes that are needed in light of continuing loss of biodiversity and its consequences for societal dependence on and benefits from nature.     

我国生物多样性保护自然-社会科学交叉融合与发展

保护科学前沿研究重视克服单一学科的局限而向超越自然科学和社会科学跨学科交叉融合转型。基于世界自然保护联盟-世界保护区委员会(IUCN-WCPA)自然保护地管理有效性框架,从规划制定、执行和评估三个方面系统梳理了我国保护科学的研究进展,分析了保护自然科学和社会科学在研究内容、方法和视角等方面的差异,识别出潜在的跨学科综合研究领域。结果表明,我国保护自然科学与社会科学研究大多相互独立、缺乏融合协作,少有的跨学科研究在整体性、系统性、兼容性、深入性和规范性上有待提高。自然科学家在介入社会科学研究时缺乏对现实制度的科学理解,所提出的保护政策和行动建议偏向理想主义,阻碍保护科学跨学科知识生产;社会科学家则缺乏自然科学方法和数据的知识积累,所提出的政策和行动建议脱离事实和证据,偏向主观主义,不利于保护科学知识进步。为此,构建了基于自然保护地适应性管理逻辑下的保护科学跨学科整合框架,以推动保护科学共同话语的形成,实现社会与生态的耦合协调发展。     

Model of development of science by the example of limnology

Limnology—the science about lakes—is the young and relatively closed area of studies; its existence is owing to several hundreds of scientists. The International Society of Limnologists holds its meetings since 1922. We used materials of these meetings to find out the main stages of development of this science; among these stages there were both fast and relatively calm periods. Based on analysis of these data, we constructed a model of development of the science, the same data being used for tuning and verification of the model. We have suggested that the main regularities and mechanisms of development of limnology can be extrapolated to other sciences. The main “acting person” in the model is population of scientists. Each scientist, with some probability, can propose new ideas as well as use in his studies some particular complex of the already accumulated knowledge and ideas. The model also takes into consideration how the scientific information is spreading, as well as some individual peculiarities of model scientists, such as age, experience, communicability. After the model parameters had been chosen in such a way that is described adequately development of limnology, we performed a series of experiments by changing some of the characteristics and obtained rather unexpected results published preliminary in the short work (Levchenko, V.F. and Menshutkin, V.V., Int. J. Comput. Anticip. Syst., 2008, vol. 22, pp. 63–75) and discussed here in the greater detail. It is revealed that development of science occurs irregularly and is sharply decelerated at low level of communication between scientists and the absence of scientific schools, while the age of “scientific youth” of scientist usually begins only after 40 years.