Public Understanding of Science

Over the past few decades, explicitly humorous or comedic science communication initiatives have become increasingly prominent. Within this context, a number of scientists and science communicators have chosen to deploy improvised comedy (“improv”) which incorporates and foregrounds science as a form of science communication. This study of a small selection of international science improv groups aims to better understand the emergence of science improv as a form of science communication, including who is creating science improv, for what purposes, and with what consequences. The research highlights the tension perceived by many scientists who perform science improv between an inherently spontaneous theatrical approach and the “risks” associated with uttering scientific mistruths, as well as the ways in which scientists have attempted to mitigate this tension by either avoiding scientific content or diluting the artistic commitments usually inherent to the improv medium (i.e. the principle of “yes, and”).

The role that attitudes towards science plays in science acceptance has received attention in recent years, yet little is known about the ways that public attitudes towards science are conceptualised and measured. To address this, our review sought to identify instruments developed to measure attitudes towards general science or the scientific method for use with adult populations that had been subjected to psychometric analyses. The review protocol was pre-registered and methodology adhered to the Joanna Briggs Institute guidelines and PRISMA extension for scoping reviews. Title and abstract screening of 16,658 articles by two independent reviewers identified 783 articles for full-text screening, resulting in 31 articles (29 separate instruments) for inclusion. Psychometric properties were summarised; variations in conceptualisations of attitudes towards science and adherence to best-practice recommendations for scale development were identified. Overall, this research contributes to our ongoing understanding of attitudes towards science and the measurement of this important construct.

Science-based experts have started to utilize social media to seek direct contact with audiences and social recognition for their expertise. Experts need to balance professional principles and the expectations arising from the changing media landscape. To understand how science-based experts navigate their way on social media, we utilize the concept of boundary work. We analyze how medical doctors enact and expand expertise on Instagram via boundary work in relation to publics, self, and markets. Using qualitative content analysis, we studied 2125 Instagram posts from the 20 most-followed doctors in Finland. Doctors enacted expertise by holding on to their epistemic authority, maintaining their professional role at the core of their posts, and avoiding advertising medical services. However, they expanded expertise by building relationships with their audiences, using anecdotes and personal experiences in their communication, and creating new communicational products for their audiences.

People often reject scientific evidence that is at odds with their previous beliefs. Here, we examine the role of threat in such motivated science rejection and whether affirmations in science communication can effectively reduce threat, thereby alleviating motivated rejection. Across three experimental studies (N_total = 2728) set in written interview scenarios about the alleged effects of gender-conscious language (i.e. using language that explicitly accounts for all genders, instead of, e.g. using generic masculine forms), we find consistent evidence for threat, especially autonomy threat, as an important driver for motivated rejection of researchers’ trustworthiness and evidence credibility. Shared value and autonomy affirmations, however, showed less consistent and, if any, very small effects as modulators of motivated science rejection, questioning their practical relevance in science communication.

Today’s increasing and indiscriminate use of generative artificial intelligence to access science-related information is a serious cause for concern. Here, we investigated the role of knowledge about generative AI in individuals’ engagement with AI-generated science-related information. Specifically, we focused on the relationship between epistemic AI knowledge, regarding the features and construction processes that characterize AI output, and individuals’ likelihood of changing their dietary decisions following exposure to AI-generated content. Based on two consecutive online surveys with embedded performance tasks, Study I (n = 500) and Study II (n = 800) demonstrated that less epistemic AI knowledge and higher trust in generative AI significantly increase the likelihood of changing decisions and reasoning, often to align with the generative AI’s responses. People were also more likely to change their decision in the presence of information reliability cues such as two concordant generative AI responses, regardless of alignment with experts’ views or the presence of reliable sources.

This article explores the persistent troubles in the relation of science and its publics through a sociological lens. It conceptualises science communication as a wicked problem, a systemic challenge involving boundary negotiations across differentiated social worlds. We then examine how actors themselves interpret this wicked situation. We find that multiple paradigms of deficits, that is, master discourses of narrating this wickedness as crises, have become prominent. Over time, these crises have centred on issues of knowledge, trust, participation, and, most recently, political action. Yet, earlier crisis discourses do not disappear; instead, they persist alongside their successors. In conclusion, we call for a reflexive approach that critically examines how actors’ categories and discourses shape problem perception and communication strategies. The article advocates for avoiding normative allegiance to single master discourses and emphasises the importance of empirical investigation of the relation of science and its publics across periods, countries, and disciplines.

Uncertainty, though integral to scientific practice and advancement, is routinely omitted from science communication. While extensive study has uncovered the effect of this in politicized scientific fields, its influence in unpoliticized sciences is murkier. This survey-experiment study in the USA investigates audience perceptions of communicator trustworthiness when reading excerpts of neuroimaging journalism portraying the field as (a) uncertainty-filled or (b) certain enough to be on the cusp of enabling mind-reading. Findings bolster hitherto mixed results and (exploratorily) suggest perceived communicator trustworthiness may hinge on an author’s uncertainty matching audience members’ tolerance for uncertainty—when they score high in science literacy.

Contrary to widespread claims of a crisis in public trust in science, this article argues that recent pandemic-era trends reflect a long-term pattern of bilateral political polarization rather than a universal decline in scientific confidence. Recent empirical data show that trust and distrust in science have both increased – producing an apparent “pandemic paradox” – driven by ideological bias operating within gaps in public understanding. The study identifies a misunderstanding of how science works as the fundamental cause of politicized trust, where misconceptions create space for ideological bias to shape which claims individuals find credible. Critically, the article argues that existing interventions – improved science communication and increased science education – are insufficient. The core problem is not the quantity of science education but its type. Only by teaching the methodological and institutional limitations of science can the field depolarize public trust and build politically stable confidence in scientific institutions.

By its nature, scientific understanding is subject to change, as methods to study a phenomenon become more refined. How can scientific findings be conveyed to the general public when segments of the public may hold on to beliefs unsupported by science? We examined this problem by considering how individuals correct health misconceptions in response to differently phrased explanations of scientific knowledge. The results from two experiments showed that while explanations containing more tentative phrases characteristic of scientific communication (e.g., evidence suggests) were effective, those containing more assertive phrases (e.g., this is proven) were the most effective for updating lay knowledge. Furthermore, relative to the more tentative phrasing, the more assertive phrasing was judged as more convincing and conveying higher confidence. These findings demonstrate the need to determine more effective methods of communicating and conveying confidence in scientific findings.

Trust in scientists has declined among US conservatives, while belief in science itself remains high among nearly everyone. This indicates a political differentiation of scientific authority where political ideologues are increasingly getting their scientific information from different scientific sources. But beyond pure information consumption, those who have eschewed mainstream scientific authority are also more likely to find support for their scientific identity in a more differentiated medium like the Internet. To examine this possibility, we use the General Social Survey NSF Knowledge scale and a question measuring self-perception of scientific competency to operationalize a concept we call “scientific humility/arrogance.” We then compare liberals and conservatives on this measure across self-reported mediums of scientific consumption. We find that accessing scientific information through the Internet has the general effect of humbling extreme liberals with no such effect found among conservatives. We discuss implications for researchers and stakeholders in scientific communication and understandings.

This study examines how scientific literacy dimensions—nature of science understanding, scientific reasoning, positive beliefs about science, and interest in science—are related to willingness to participate in medical research, mediated by conspiracy beliefs about and trust in medical researchers. Survey data were collected from a sample of 600 Slovaks recruited via an online panel. Regression-based mediation analysis revealed that positive beliefs about science and interest in science exhibited total and indirect associations with willingness to participate in medical research. By contrast, nature of science understanding and scientific reasoning were related to willingness to participate in medical research only indirectly. The indirect pathways of all scientific literacy dimensions operated through conspiracy beliefs about and trust in medical researchers, with trust showing the strongest positive association with willingness to participate in medical research. These findings highlight that the association between scientific literacy and willingness to participate in medical research is rather complex, mediated by beliefs about medical researchers. Addressing these beliefs alongside scientific literacy promotion may enhance public willingness to participate in medical research.

Initiatives that collect and share genomic data to advance health research are widespread and accelerating. Commercial interests in these efforts, while vital, may erode public trust and willingness to provide personal genomic data, upon which these initiatives depend. Understanding public attitudes towards providing genomic data for health research in the context of commercial involvement is critical. A PRISMA-guided search of six online academic databases identified 113 quantitative and qualitative studies using primary data pertaining to public attitudes towards commercial actors in the management, collection, access, and use of biobank and genomic data. The presence of commercial interests yields interrelated public concerns around consent, privacy and data security, trust in science and scientists, benefit sharing, and the ownership and control of health data. Carefully considered regulatory and data governance and access policies are therefore required to maintain public trust and support for genomic health initiatives.

The COVID-19 pandemic was accompanied by an infodemic in which trust in news played an essential role. This article analyzes how this trust can be divided into two components, institutional and non-institutional, which are differentially related to beliefs about COVID-19 and perceptions of receiving misinformation and disinformation. Based on a survey conducted in three European countries (Germany, Spain, and the United Kingdom), the study confirms that higher levels of institutional news trust (the trust dimension correlated more with trust in the news media, government, politicians, national and global health organizations, and scientists) are a good predictor of both better knowledge of COVID-19 myths and misstatements, and lower perceptions of being surrounded by false and misleading information about the virus. The research also highlights the special role of media and political sources in strengthening the institutional dimension of news trust.