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.

  • Commentary
  • Published:

Communicating chemistry for public engagement

Nature Chemistry volume 3, pages 674–677 (2011)Cite this article

Subjects

The communication of chemistry to wider society is difficult because of 'chemophobia', its inherent complexity and its lack of unifying grand themes. To engage with citizens about the benefits and related dangers of the field, chemists must improve their dialogue with broader sections of the public — but how?

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

Relevant articles

Open Access articles citing this article.

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

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

References

  1. Lazlo, P. in The Public Image of Chemistry (eds Schummer, J., Bensaude-Vincent, B. & van Tiggelen, B.) Ch. 12 (World Scientific, 2007).

    Google Scholar 

  2. Schummer, J., Bensaude-Vincent, B. & Van Tiggelen, B. (eds) in The Public Image of Chemistry 1–6 (World Scientific, 2007).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  3. Bodmer, W. The Public Understanding of Science (Royal Society, 1985).

    Google Scholar 

  4. House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology Science and Society (Her Majesty's Stationary Office, 2000).

  5. Science in Society Action Plan (European Commission, 2002).

  6. Ball, P. Nature 469, 26–28 (2011).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Ball, P. in The Public Image of Chemistry (eds Schummer, J., Bensaude-Vincent, B. & van Tiggelen, B.) Ch. 4 (World Scientific, 2007).

    Google Scholar 

  8. Eger, M. in The Literature of Science: Perspectives on Popular Science Writing (ed. McRae, M. W.) 186–213 (Univ. Georgia Press, 1993).

    Google Scholar 

  9. Miller, S. in Encyclopedia of Science and Technology Communication (ed. Hornig Priest, S.) 207–209 (Sage, 2010).

    Google Scholar 

  10. Nisbet, M. C. et al. Am. J. Bot. 96, 1767–1778 (2009).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Schummer, J. & Spector, T. I. in The Public Image of Chemistry (eds Schummer, J., Bensaude-Vincent, B. & van Tiggelen, B.) Ch. 9 (World Scientific, 2007).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  12. Borchelt, R. E. in Handbook of Public Communication of Science and Technology (eds Bucchi, M. & Trench, B.) Ch. 10 (Routledge, 2008).

    Google Scholar 

  13. Hoffmann, R. The Same and Not the Same (Columbia Univ. Press, 1995).

    Google Scholar 

  14. Radford, T. Nature 469, 445 (2011).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Science and Technology (European Commission, Special Eurobarometer 340, 2010).

  16. National Science Board in Science and Engineering Indicators 2010 Ch. 7 (National Science Foundation, 2010).

  17. Irwin, A. Handbook of Public Communication of Science and Technology (eds Bucchi, M. & Trench, B.) Ch. 14 (Routledge, 2008).

    Google Scholar 

  18. Kim, Y. M. Commun. Res. 36, 254–284 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Nisbet, M. C. in Oxford Handbook of Climate Change and Society (eds Dryzek, J. S., Norgaard, R. B. & Schlosberg, D.) Part 7 (Oxford Univ. Press, in the press).

  20. Feldman, l. et al. in The Stewart/Colbert Effect: Essays on the Real Impacts of Fake News (ed. Amarasingam, A) 25–46 (McFarland, 2011).

    Google Scholar 

  21. Fahy, D. et al. Journalism: Theor. Pract. Criticism (in the press).

  22. Wolfe-Simon, F., Switzer Blum, J. & Kulp, T. R. et al. Science 332, 1163–1166 (2011).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. http://storify.com/dvergano/the-arsen-chronicles

  24. Gamson, W. A. et al. Am. J. Sociol. 95, 1–37 (1989).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Ferree, M. W. et al. Shaping Abortion Discourse: Democracy and the Public Sphere in Germany and the United States (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2002).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  26. Pidgeon, N. et al. Nature Nanotech. 4, 95–98 (2009).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Matthew R. Hartings is in the Department of Chemistry, American University, Washington, DC, USA,

    Matthew R. Hartings

  2. Declan Fahy is in the School of Communication, American University, Washington, DC, USA ,

    Declan Fahy

Authors
  1. Matthew R. Hartings
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Declan Fahy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Matthew R. Hartings or Declan Fahy.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hartings, M., Fahy, D. Communicating chemistry for public engagement. Nature Chem 3, 674–677 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1038/nchem.1094

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nchem.1094

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