As new media proliferate and the public's trust and engagement in science are influenced by industry involvement in academic research, an interdisciplinary workshop provides some recommendations to enhance science communication.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution
Access options
Subscribe to this journal
Receive 12 print issues and online access
$209.00 per year
only $17.42 per issue
Buy this article
- Purchase on Springer Link
- Instant access to full article PDF
Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout
References
House of Lords. Science and Society (House of Lords, London, 2000). <http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/ld199900/ldselect/ldsctech/38/3801.htm>.
The Royal Society. Factors Affecting Science Communication: A Survey of Scientists and Engineers (The Royal Society, London, 2006). <http://royalsociety.org/page.asp?id=31802>.
Critchley, C.R. Public Underst. Sci. 17, 309–327 (2008).
United Kingdom Research Councils. UK Public Attitudes to Science, 2008: A Survey (RCUK, Swindon, 2008). <http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/cmsweb/downloads/rcuk/scisoc/pas08.pdf>.
<http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/09/29/decoding-your-health/>.
Orkin, S.H. & Motulsky, A.G. Report and Recommendations of the Panel to Assess the NIH Investment in Research on Gene Therapy (National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, USA, 1995). <http://www.nih.gov/news/panelrep.html>.
Stockdale, A. Sociol. Health Illn. 21, 579–596 (1999).
National Science Foundation. Science and Technology: Public Attitudes and Public Understanding (National Science Board, Arlington, Virginia, USA, 1998).
UK Office of Science and Technology Science and the Public. A Review of Science Communication and Attitudes to Science in Britain (Wellcome Trust, London, 2000).
Sturgis, P. & Allum, N. Public Underst. Sci. 13, 55–74 (2004).
Haran, J., Kitzinger, J., McNeil, M. & O'Riordan, K. Human Cloning in the Media: From Science Fiction to Science Practice (Routledge, Abingdon, UK, 2007).
Nisbet, M.C. & Goidel, K. Public Underst. Sci. 16, 421–440 (2007).
Nerlich, B., Clarke, D.D. & Dingwall, R. Soc. Res. Online 4 (1999) <http://www.socresonline.org.uk/socresonline/4/3/Nerlich.htm>.
Einsiedel, E. Public engagement and dialogue: a research review. in Handbook of Public Communication on Science and Technology (eds. Bucchi, M. & Smart, B.) 173–184 (Routledge, London, 2008).
Powell, M. & Kleinman, D.L. Public Underst. Sci. 17, 329–348 (2008).
Besley, J.C., Kramer, V.L., Yao, Q. & Tourney, C.P. Sci. Commun. 30, 209–235 (2008).
Wynne, B. Community Genet. 9, 211–220 (2006).
Wilsdon, J. & Willis, R. See-through Science: Why Public Engagement Needs to Move Upstream (Demos, London, 2004).
Rogers-Hayden, T. & Pidgion, N. Public Underst. Sci. 16, 345–364 (2007).
Goidel, K. & Nisbet, M.C. Polit. Behav. 28, 175–192 (2006).
Downs, A. An Economic Theory of Democracy (Harper, New York, 1957).
Popkin, S. The Reasoning Voter (University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1991).
Mutz, D. in Red and Blue Nation, vol. 1 (eds. Nivola, P. & Brady, D.W.) 222–263 (The Brookings Institution, Washington, DC, 2006).
Nisbet, M.C. & Mooney, C. Science 316, 56 (2007).
Gamson, W.A. & Modigliani, A. Am. J. Sociol. 95, 1–37 (1989).
Scheufele, D.A.J. Communication 49, 103–122 (1999).
Nisbet, M.C. & Scheufele, D.A. Scientist 21, 39–44 (2007).
Labov, J.B. & Kline Pope, B. CBE Life Sci. Educ. 7, 20–24 (2008).
Nisbet, M.C. & Huge, M. Int. J. Press/Politics 11, 2, 3–40 (2006).
Caulfield, T., Bubela, T. & Murdoch, C. Genet. Med. 9, 850–855 (2007).
Bubela, T. & Caulfield, T. Can. Med. Assoc. J. 170, 1399–1407 (2004).
Nisbet, M.C. & Lewenstein, B.V. Sci. Commun. 23, 359–391 (2002).
Durant, J., Bauer, M. & Gaskell, G. Biotechnology in the Public Sphere: A European Sourcebook (Michigan State University Press, Lansing, Michigan, USA, 1998).
Holtzman, N.A. et al. Community Genet. 8, 133–144 (2005).
Peters, H.P. et al. Sci. Commun. 321, 204–205 (2008).
Gunther, A.C. & Schmitt, K. J. Commun. 54, 55–70 (2004).
Nerlich, B. in Cognitive Foundations of Linguistic Usage Patterns (eds. Schmid, H.J. & Handl, S.) (Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin, in the press).
Nerlich, B. & Halliday, C. Sociol. Health Illn. 29, 46–65 (2007).
Caulfield, T. Trends Biotechnol. 22, 337–339 (2004).
Bubela, T. Clin. Genet. 70, 445–450 (2006).
Vickers, A., Goyal, N., Harland, R. & Rees, R. Control. Clin. Trials 19, 159–166 (1998).
Conrad, P. & Markens, S. Health 5, 373–390 (2001).
Petersen, A. J. Commun. Inq. 23, 163–182 (1999).
Mountcastle-Shah, E. et al. Sci. Commun. 24, 458–478 (2003).
Cook, D.M., Boyd, E.A., Grossmann, C. & Bero, L.A. PLoS One 2, e1266 (2007).
McComas, K.A. & Simone, L.M. Sci. Commun. 24, 395–419 (2003).
Brossard, D. & Nisbet, M.C. Int. J. Public Opin. Res. 19, 24–52 (2007).
<http://pewresearch.org/pubs/928/key-news-audiences-now-blend-online-and-traditional-sources
Jasanoff, S. Nature 450, 33 (2007).
Gollust, S.E., Wilfond, B.S. & Hull, S.C. Genet. Med. 5, 332–337 (2003).
Mayo Clinic Staff. Genetic testing you can order online. Women's Health (Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research, 26 March 2008). <http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/genetic-testing/GA00058>.
Lau, D. et al. Cell Stem Cell 3, 591–594 (2008).
Blum, D., Knudson, M. & Marantz Henig, R. (eds.). A Field Guide for Science Writers. (Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK, 2005).
Schwitzer, G. et al. PLoS Med. 2, e215 (2005).
Thompson, L. in Genes and Human Self-Knowledge (eds. Weir, R., Lawrence, S.C. & Fales, E.) 104–121 (University of Iowa Press, Iowa City, Iowa, USA, 1994).
Bubela, T. & Taylor, B. Health Law Rev. 16, 39–47 (2008).
U.S. Government Accountability Office. Nutrigenetic Testing: Tests Purchased from Four Web Sites Mislead Consumers (GAO-06-977T, 2006). <http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-977T>.
Yarborough, M., Fryer-Edwards, K., Geller, G. & Sharp, R.R. Acad. Med. (in the press).
Borchelt, R. & Hudson, K. Sci. Prog. Spring/Summer: 78–81 (2008).
Geller, G., Bernhardt, B.A., Rodgers, J.E. & Holtzman, N.A. Genet. Med. 7, 198–205 (2005).
Brumfield, G. Nature 458, 274–277 (2008).
Acknowledgements
The workshop was supported by grants from Genome Canada (grant no. G53400000 to T. Caulfield, E. Einsiedel, P. Phillips and M. Veeman), The Stem Cell Network (to T. Caulfield, E. Einsiedel and B.M. Knoppers) and The Advanced Food and Materials Network (grant no. 18G to T. Caulfield and D. Castle). We thank N. Hawkins at the Health Law Institute (Edmonton, Alberta, Canada) for administrative support.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Bubela, T., Nisbet, M., Borchelt, R. et al. Science communication reconsidered. Nat Biotechnol 27, 514–518 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt0609-514
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt0609-514
This article is cited by
-
Science Fiction Fan Conventions as Places to Communicate Science
Research in Science Education (2024)
-
Identifying public trust building priorities of gene editing in agriculture and food
Agriculture and Human Values (2024)
-
Prolific non-research authors in high impact scientific journals: meta-research study
Scientometrics (2023)