We encourage you to republish this article online and in print, it’s free under our creative commons attribution license, but please follow some simple guidelines:
  1. You have to credit our authors.
  2. You have to credit SciDev.Net — where possible include our logo with a link back to the original article.
  3. You can simply run the first few lines of the article and then add: “Read the full article on SciDev.Net” containing a link back to the original article.
  4. If you want to also take images published in this story you will need to confirm with the original source if you're licensed to use them.
  5. The easiest way to get the article on your site is to embed the code below.
For more information view our media page and republishing guidelines.

The full article is available here as HTML.

Press Ctrl-C to copy

The science of science communication is critical to ensuring that people can understand how research can affect their lives and communities, says Alan Leshner, chief executive officer of the American Association for the Advancement of Science and executive publisher of Science.

The public's understanding of science and technology is more important than ever, Leshner says, but "ethical, legal and social implications are emerging at a rate that seems to be outpacing society's capacity to make sense of the science."

He cites climate change, GM food and evolution as topics which policymakers and the public frequently "misunderstand, misrepresent or disregard." But for many researchers, engaging the public is an afterthought.

Empirical research is now yielding information about attitudes to scientific knowledge that can help scientists communicate more effectively, says Leshner. Some of the findings are surprising — showing, for example, that ideology and cultural background appear to have more of a bearing on an individual's stance on a particular issue, than knowledge of scientific 'fact'.

The way an issue is framed also tends to have a great impact on public views. For example, scientific claims about climate change are given more credit when the issue is framed as a challenge for technology rather than for regulation.

Leshner says that there are lessons to be learned from "antiscience forces", who often oversimplify to tell a convincing story, even when the science is distorted in the process.

Because research shows that people care more about what might affect them personally, Leshner suggests that the most useful approach is to identify a specific audience's concerns and make the message relevant to them in the most objective way possible. Yet to maintain credibility, scientists must "stick to the facts", he says.

Link to full article in Science