Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Science communication reconsidered

Nature Biotechnology volume 27, pages 514–518 (2009)Cite this article

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.

Over the past several decades, the complexities of science communication have been magnified by institutional, social and technological change. Science increasingly is interdisciplinary, bureaucratic, global in scale, problem-based and dependent on private funding. This latter trend, in particular, raises issues of public trust in science, which studies have shown is diminished by researcher and institutional affiliation with the private sector, especially in the area of biomedicine3,4.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Relevant articles

Open Access articles citing this article.

Access options

Rent or buy this article

Prices vary by article type

from$1.95

to$39.95

Learn more

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

References

  1. 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>.

  2. 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>.

  3. Critchley, C.R. Public Underst. Sci. 17, 309–327 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 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>.

  5. <http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/09/29/decoding-your-health/>.

  6. 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>.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Stockdale, A. Sociol. Health Illn. 21, 579–596 (1999).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. National Science Foundation. Science and Technology: Public Attitudes and Public Understanding (National Science Board, Arlington, Virginia, USA, 1998).

  9. 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).

  10. Sturgis, P. & Allum, N. Public Underst. Sci. 13, 55–74 (2004).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Haran, J., Kitzinger, J., McNeil, M. & O'Riordan, K. Human Cloning in the Media: From Science Fiction to Science Practice (Routledge, Abingdon, UK, 2007).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  12. Nisbet, M.C. & Goidel, K. Public Underst. Sci. 16, 421–440 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Nerlich, B., Clarke, D.D. & Dingwall, R. Soc. Res. Online 4 (1999) <http://www.socresonline.org.uk/socresonline/4/3/Nerlich.htm>.

  14. 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).

    Google Scholar 

  15. Powell, M. & Kleinman, D.L. Public Underst. Sci. 17, 329–348 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Besley, J.C., Kramer, V.L., Yao, Q. & Tourney, C.P. Sci. Commun. 30, 209–235 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Wynne, B. Community Genet. 9, 211–220 (2006).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Wilsdon, J. & Willis, R. See-through Science: Why Public Engagement Needs to Move Upstream (Demos, London, 2004).

    Google Scholar 

  19. Rogers-Hayden, T. & Pidgion, N. Public Underst. Sci. 16, 345–364 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Goidel, K. & Nisbet, M.C. Polit. Behav. 28, 175–192 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Downs, A. An Economic Theory of Democracy (Harper, New York, 1957).

    Google Scholar 

  22. Popkin, S. The Reasoning Voter (University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1991).

    Google Scholar 

  23. Mutz, D. in Red and Blue Nation, vol. 1 (eds. Nivola, P. & Brady, D.W.) 222–263 (The Brookings Institution, Washington, DC, 2006).

    Google Scholar 

  24. Nisbet, M.C. & Mooney, C. Science 316, 56 (2007).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Gamson, W.A. & Modigliani, A. Am. J. Sociol. 95, 1–37 (1989).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Scheufele, D.A.J. Communication 49, 103–122 (1999).

    Google Scholar 

  27. Nisbet, M.C. & Scheufele, D.A. Scientist 21, 39–44 (2007).

    Google Scholar 

  28. Labov, J.B. & Kline Pope, B. CBE Life Sci. Educ. 7, 20–24 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Nisbet, M.C. & Huge, M. Int. J. Press/Politics 11, 2, 3–40 (2006).

    Google Scholar 

  30. Caulfield, T., Bubela, T. & Murdoch, C. Genet. Med. 9, 850–855 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Bubela, T. & Caulfield, T. Can. Med. Assoc. J. 170, 1399–1407 (2004).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Nisbet, M.C. & Lewenstein, B.V. Sci. Commun. 23, 359–391 (2002).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Durant, J., Bauer, M. & Gaskell, G. Biotechnology in the Public Sphere: A European Sourcebook (Michigan State University Press, Lansing, Michigan, USA, 1998).

    Google Scholar 

  34. Holtzman, N.A. et al. Community Genet. 8, 133–144 (2005).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Peters, H.P. et al. Sci. Commun. 321, 204–205 (2008).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Gunther, A.C. & Schmitt, K. J. Commun. 54, 55–70 (2004).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Nerlich, B. in Cognitive Foundations of Linguistic Usage Patterns (eds. Schmid, H.J. & Handl, S.) (Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin, in the press).

  38. Nerlich, B. & Halliday, C. Sociol. Health Illn. 29, 46–65 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Caulfield, T. Trends Biotechnol. 22, 337–339 (2004).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Bubela, T. Clin. Genet. 70, 445–450 (2006).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Vickers, A., Goyal, N., Harland, R. & Rees, R. Control. Clin. Trials 19, 159–166 (1998).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Conrad, P. & Markens, S. Health 5, 373–390 (2001).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Petersen, A. J. Commun. Inq. 23, 163–182 (1999).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Mountcastle-Shah, E. et al. Sci. Commun. 24, 458–478 (2003).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Cook, D.M., Boyd, E.A., Grossmann, C. & Bero, L.A. PLoS One 2, e1266 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. McComas, K.A. & Simone, L.M. Sci. Commun. 24, 395–419 (2003).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Brossard, D. & Nisbet, M.C. Int. J. Public Opin. Res. 19, 24–52 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. <http://pewresearch.org/pubs/928/key-news-audiences-now-blend-online-and-traditional-sources

  49. Jasanoff, S. Nature 450, 33 (2007).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  50. Gollust, S.E., Wilfond, B.S. & Hull, S.C. Genet. Med. 5, 332–337 (2003).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. 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>.

  52. Lau, D. et al. Cell Stem Cell 3, 591–594 (2008).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  53. Blum, D., Knudson, M. & Marantz Henig, R. (eds.). A Field Guide for Science Writers. (Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK, 2005).

    Google Scholar 

  54. Schwitzer, G. et al. PLoS Med. 2, e215 (2005).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. 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).

    Google Scholar 

  56. Bubela, T. & Taylor, B. Health Law Rev. 16, 39–47 (2008).

    Google Scholar 

  57. 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>.

  58. Yarborough, M., Fryer-Edwards, K., Geller, G. & Sharp, R.R. Acad. Med. (in the press).

  59. Borchelt, R. & Hudson, K. Sci. Prog. Spring/Summer: 78–81 (2008).

  60. Geller, G., Bernhardt, B.A., Rodgers, J.E. & Holtzman, N.A. Genet. Med. 7, 198–205 (2005).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Brumfield, G. Nature 458, 274–277 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

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

  1. School of Public Health, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada

    Tania Bubela

  2. Health Law Institute, Law Centre, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada

    Tania Bubela, Robyn Hyde-Lay, Summer Lane, Ubaka Ogbogu & Colin Ouellette

  3. School of Communication, American University, Washington, DC, USA

    Matthew C Nisbet

  4. Genetics and Public Policy Center, Johns Hopkins University, Washington, DC, USA

    Rick Borchelt

  5. Division of Community Health & Humanities, Faculty of Medicine, Memorial University of Newfoundland, St. John's, Newfoundland, Canada

    Fern Brunger

  6. Faculty of Life and Social Sciences, Swinburne University of Technology, Hawthorn, Victoria, Australia

    Cristine Critchley

  7. Faculty of Communication and Culture, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada

    Edna Einsiedel

  8. Berman Institute of Bioethics, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, USA

    Gail Geller

  9. Department of Medicine, School of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, USA

    Gail Geller

  10. Department of Health, Behavior and Society, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, USA

    Gail Geller

  11. Applied Research and Analysis Directorate, Health Policy Branch, Health Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

    Anil Gupta

  12. Department for Sociology of Technology and Environment, University of Stuttgart, Stuttgart, Germany

    Jürgen Hampel

  13. Genome Alberta, Calgary, Alberta, Canada

    Robyn Hyde-Lay & Mike Spear

  14. Science Journalism Research Group, School of Journalism, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada

    Eric W Jandciu

  15. Faculty of Communication and Culture, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada

    S Ashley Jones

  16. Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada

    Pam Kolopack

  17. Canadian Science Writers Association, Toronto, Ontario, Canada

    Tim Lougheed

  18. Institute for Science and Society, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK

    Brigitte Nerlich

  19. Faculty of Law, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada

    Ubaka Ogbogu

  20. Centre for Material Digital Culture, University of Sussex, Brighton, UK

    Kathleen O'Riordan

  21. ESRC Centre for Economic and Social Aspects of Genomics (Cesagen), Institute for Advanced Studies, County South, Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK

    Kathleen O'Riordan

  22. Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, Toronto, Ontario, Canada

    Stephen Strauss

  23. Faculty of Communication and Culture, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada

    Thushaanthini Thavaratnam

  24. Stem Cell Network, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

    Lisa Willemse

  25. Health Law Institute, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada

    Timothy Caulfield

  26. Faculty of Law, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada

    Timothy Caulfield

  27. School of Public Health, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada

    Timothy Caulfield

Authors
  1. Tania Bubela
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Matthew C Nisbet
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Rick Borchelt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Fern Brunger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Cristine Critchley
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Edna Einsiedel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Gail Geller
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Anil Gupta
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Jürgen Hampel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Robyn Hyde-Lay
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Eric W Jandciu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. S Ashley Jones
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  13. Pam Kolopack
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  14. Summer Lane
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  15. Tim Lougheed
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  16. Brigitte Nerlich
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  17. Ubaka Ogbogu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  18. Kathleen O'Riordan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  19. Colin Ouellette
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  20. Mike Spear
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  21. Stephen Strauss
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  22. Thushaanthini Thavaratnam
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  23. Lisa Willemse
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  24. Timothy Caulfield
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tania Bubela.

Rights and permissions

Reprints 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

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt0609-514

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing