Researchers call for adopting a collaborative model in scientific communication that combines values, open discourse, and recognition of uncertainty
In a new media landscape based on political and cultural polarization, the scientific community is required to rethink how it communicates with the public regarding scientific discoveries, controversies, and policies.
Authors of a new report published in the journal PNAS - Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences It is claimed that the traditional model of conveying facts with the assumption that "the truth will prevail" is no longer effective.
Instead, they propose a new model – "Collaborative model" – that encourages open public discourse, incorporates personal and moral values, creates equality between different voices, and accepts uncertainty as a legitimate component of science.
Prof. Dietram Scheufele Dietram Scheufele, one of the report's senior researchers, a researcher at the Morgridge Institute and professor of science communication at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, says the report's goal is to bridge the growing gap between science and society, on issues such as climate change, vaccines, gene editing, and artificial intelligence.
“Scientists tend to answer technical questions they think are relevant – about risks and benefits – but communities ask other questions,” explains Scheufele.
"They ask how science will affect their personal identity, and how it corresponds with their concerns about a future that looks very different from the present."
According to him, the technical answers are only part of the scientific discussion – the real debate is about values, and the choices involved in policy.
“We are beginning to understand how technologies like artificial intelligence and gene editing are changing the way we perceive what it means to be human,” he adds. “We can keep science at the center of the discussion, but also recognize that science alone does not determine the outcome.”
The report also points out the limitations of the current approach: a large-scale experiment that included 819 Social Media Experiments In an effort to increase coronavirus vaccination rates, he managed to change positions by only one percent.
The document was prepared by science communication experts with funding from the National Academy of Sciences. It is part of a special section in PNAS that deals with current research on public engagement in science.
Main conclusions in the report:
The report points to several key flaws in the way science currently communicates with the public: Scientists sometimes present science as value-free, but in reality policy decisions are influenced by both scientific evidence and public values. The top-down approach to dissemination assumes that the public lacks knowledge and that facts alone will correct their opinions – a condescending approach that ignores the inherent uncertainty of science and stifles dialogue.
Political polarization around science is growing – for example, Republicans’ trust in science has fallen from 47% in 2000 to just 28% in 2022, while Democrats’ trust has increased slightly. Both political parties exaggerate the other’s positions, deepening the polarization. In a polarized media environment, political science gives a platform to the most extreme voices and elevates pseudoscience to the level of real science. Finally, while there is a growing body of knowledge about effective ways to communicate science, too little is being done to put it into practice.
What's the solution?
Scheufele argues that the way to communicate science today is Through discourse, not coercion or persuasion. It requires scientists Intellectual humility And a desire to learn from the public – not just teach it.
"If we don't change direction, we will continue to see science become a tool in the political arena. Science is the most important mechanism we have for creating, editing, and disseminating knowledge."
Schweifel is at the helm Morgridge Science Communication Lab, which works together with field and media professionals to engage with the public and promotes innovative models for scientific discourse.
More of the topic in Hayadan:
