- Oxford Library of Psychology
- Oxford Library of Psychology
- About the Editors
- Introduction: Why Science Communication?
- The Need for a Science of Science Communication: Communicating Science’s Values and Norms
- Overview of the Science of Science Communication
- On the Sources of Ordinary Science Knowledge and Extraordinary Science Ignorance
- How Changing Media Structures Are Affecting Science News Coverage
- What the Public Thinks and Knows About Science—and Why It Matters
- Science Controversies: Can the Science of Science Communication Provide Management Guidance or Only Analysis?
- A Recap: The Science of Communicating Science
- Science as “Broken” Versus Science as “Self-Correcting”: How Retractions and Peer-Review Problems Are Exploited to Attack Science
- Publication Bias in Science: What Is It, Why Is It Problematic, and How Can It Be Addressed?
- Statistical Biases in Science Communication: What We Know About Them and How They Can Be Addressed
- Is There a Hype Problem in Science? If So, How Is It Addressed?
- Is There a Retraction Problem? And, If So, What Can We Do About It?
- A Recap: Identifying and Overcoming Challenges to Science Featured in Attacks on Science
- A Comparative Study of Communication About Food Safety Before, During, and After the “Mad Cow” Crisis
- Cross-National Comparative Communication and Deliberation About the Risks of Nanotechnologies
- Communications About Biotechnologies and GMOs Across Europe
- A Tale of Two Vaccines—and Their Science Communication Environments
- A Recap: Science Communication in Action
- Science Communication at Scientific Institutions
- The Role of Scholarly Presses and Journals
- The Role of Governmental Organizations in Communicating About Regulating Science
- Science Communication and Museums’ Changing Roles
- The Role of Funding Organizations: Foundations
- Promoting Popular Understanding of Science and Health Through Social Networks
- Designing Public Deliberation at the Intersection of Science and Public Policy
- Translating Science into Policy and Legislation: Evidence-Informed Policymaking
- A Recap—The Role of Intermediaries in Communicating Science: A Synthesis
- The (Changing) Nature of Scientist–Media Interactions: A Cross-National Analysis
- New Models of Knowledge-Based Journalism
- Citizens Making Sense of Science Issues: Supply and Demand Factors for Science News and Information in the Digital Age
- The Changing Popular Images of Science
- What Do We Know About the Entertainment Industry’s Portrayal of Science? How Does It Affect Public Attitudes Toward Science?
- How Narrative Functions in Entertainment to Communicate Science
- Assumptions About Science in Satirical News and Late-Night Comedy
- A Recap: The Role, Power, and Peril of Media for the Communication of Science
- Countering False Beliefs: An Analysis of the Evidence and Recommendations of Best Practices for the Retraction and Correction of Scientific Misinformation
- Using Frames to Make Scientific Communication More Effective
- Philosophical Impediments to Citizens’ Use of Science
- Overcoming Confirmation and Blind Spot Biases When Communicating Science
- Understanding and Overcoming Selective Exposure and Judgment When Communicating About Science
- Overcoming Innumeracy and the Use of Heuristics When Communicating Science
- Overcoming Biases in Processing of Time Series Data About Climate
- Understanding and Overcoming Fear of the Unnatural in Discussion of GMOs
- Protecting or Polluting the Science Communication Environment?: The Case of Childhood Vaccines
- Overcoming False Causal Attribution: Debunking the MMR–Autism Association
- Overcoming the Challenges of Communicating Uncertainties Across National Contexts
- A Recap: Heuristics, Biases, Values, and Other Challenges to Communicating Science
- Conclusion—On the Horizon: The Changing Science Communication Environment
Abstract and Keywords
This chapter presents some of the methodological and philosophical challenges faced when conducting public engagement with emerging technologies. The intellectual origins and challenges of conducting upstream public engagement for science communication are discussed, illustrated through the case of nanotechnologies. A series of cross-national workshops held simultaneously in the United States and the UK are described. Findings included that benefits continued to be weighted more heavily than risks in participants’ perceptions of nanotechnologies, as well as did the type of application; that there were more US–UK cross-cultural similarities than differences in the data; the differences that did emerge were both subtle and contextual; and that discourses about social concerns rather than physical risk issues were more salient for participants in both countries. Four methodological challenges for upstream engagement are outlined. We argue that we must also place diverse publics and other concerned stakeholders at the heart of processes of responsible innovation
Nick Pidgeon is director of the Understanding Risk Research Group at Cardiff University and professor of environmental risk. He researches public risk perception and public engagement with environmental risks and energy technologies. He is an honorary fellow of the British Science Association and was awarded an MBE in the 2014 Queen’s Birthday Honours for services to climate change awareness and energy security policy.
Barbara Herr Harthorn, PhD, is a medical and psychological anthropologist who is a professor of anthropology at the University of California–Santa Barbara (UCSB) and director since 2005 of the US National Science Foundation national center, the Center for Nanotechnology in Society at UCSB. Her research examines environmental and health inequality and risk perception and responsible development and innovation.
Terre Satterfield is a professor of culture, risk, and the environment and director of the University of British Columbia’s Institute for Resources, Environment and Sustainability and graduate program. An interdisciplinary social scientist, she studies natural resource controversies, environmental values and the meaning and measurement of cultural ecosystem services, and the perceived risk of new technologies.
Christina Demski is a lecturer of social and environmental psychology as part of the Understanding Risk group at Cardiff University, UK. Her interdisciplinary research focuses on risk perception and communication, specifically examining public responses to emerging and complex sociotechnical issues. Most recently she has examined public values, attitudes, and acceptability of whole energy system transformations, including framing and decision-making with regard to energy futures.
Access to the complete content on Oxford Handbooks Online requires a subscription or purchase. Public users are able to search the site and view the abstracts and keywords for each book and chapter without a subscription.
If you have purchased a print title that contains an access token, please see the token for information about how to register your code.