Scientists’ opinions and attitudes towards citizens’ understanding of science and their role in public engagement activities
Autoři:
Carolina Llorente aff001; Gema Revuelta aff001; Mar Carrió aff002; Miquel Porta aff003
Působiště autorů:
Studies Centre on Science, Communication and Society, Department of Experimental and Health Sciences, Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona, Spain
aff001; Group of Educational Research in Health Sciences, Department of Experimental and Health Sciences, Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona, Spain
aff002; Hospital del Mar Institute of Medical Research (IMIM), Universitat Autónoma de Barcelona, CIBER de Epidemiología y Salud Pública (CIBERESP), Barcelona, Spain
aff003
Vyšlo v časopise:
PLoS ONE 14(11)
Kategorie:
Research Article
prolekare.web.journal.doi_sk:
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0224262
Souhrn
The increasing perception that public communication in science and technology is an important tool to create a knowledge society is encouraging numerous public engagement activities. However, too little is known about scientists’ opinions of and attitudes towards the public with whom they interact during these activities, especially in southern European countries such as Spain. If we want to establish an effective dialogue between science and society, we need to be aware of the opinions and perceptions that both parties have of each other. In this study, we address this issue by focusing on 1022 responses to a survey conducted among scientists in Spain to discover their views of the public, and we then compare these responses with data from other national surveys on the public’s understanding of science. The results show that approximately 75% of Spanish scientists think that the general public has a serious lack of knowledge and understanding of scientific reasoning, although scientists do recognize that science interests the public (73%). Scientists believe that the public values the scientific profession to a lesser extent than suggested by public surveys: on a scale of 1–5, survey respondents rate their valuation of the scientific profession at 4.22, whereas scientists rate the public's valuation of the profession at 3.12, on average. Significant differences were detected between scientists’ perceptions of how citizens are informed about science and what citizens report in surveys. The challenge for the future is to narrow this gap in order to help scientists gain a better understanding of the public and their interests and to make public engagement activities more effective.
Klíčová slova:
Engineering and technology – Professions – Surveys – Questionnaires – Scientists – Engineers – Spain – Spanish people
Zdroje
1. European Comission. Horizon 2020 “science with and for society” providing advice on potential priorities for research and innovation in the work programme 2016–2017 consultation paper. 2014
2. Hockfield S. Our science, our society. Science (80-). 2018;359(6375):499. doi: 10.1126/science.aat0957 29420266
3. Felt U. Taking European knowledge society seriously. European Comission. Belgium; 2007
4. Van der Hoven J, Jacob K, Nielsen L, Roure F, Rudze L, Stilgoe J. Options for Strengthening Responsible Research and Innovation. Brussels; 2013
5. Stilgoe J, Owen R, Macnaghten P. Developing a framework for responsible innovation. Res Policy. 2013;42(9):1568–80.
6. Trench B. Towards an analytical framework of science communication models. In: Communicating Science in Social Contexts: New Models, New Practices. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands; 2008. p. 119–35.
7. European Commission. Public Engagement in Science. 2007. 8–10 p.
8. Von Schomberg R. A vision of responsible innovation. In: Responsible Innovation. 2013.
9. Revuelta G. Formación en comunicación en los estudios de grado Análisis en las áreas de ciencias de la salud y la vida, ciencias ambientales y ciencias naturales. InMediaciones la Comun. 2018;13(2):159–82.
10. Besley JC, Dudo A, Yuan S, Lawrence F. Understanding Scientists’ Willingness to Engage. Sci Commun. 2018;40(5):559–90.
11. Brownell SE, Price J V, Steinman L. Science Communication to the General Public: Why We Need to Teach Undergraduate and Graduate Students this Skill as Part of Their Formal Scientific Training. J Undergrad Neurosci Educ. 2013;12(1):E6–10. 24319399
12. MoRRI consortium. The evolution of Responsible Research and Innovation in Europe: The MoRRI indicators report (D4.3). 2018
13. Martin-Sempere MJ, Garzon-Garcia B, Rey-Rocha J. Scientists’ motivation to communicate science and technology to the public: surveying participants at the Madrid Science Fair. Public Underst Sci. 2008;17(3):349–67.
14. The Royal Society. Survey of factors affecting science communication by scientists and engineers excellence in science. 2006.
15. Watermeyer R. Measuring the Impact Values of Public Engagement in Medical Contexts. Sci Commun. 2012;34(6):752–75.
16. Dunwoody S, Brossard D, Dudo A. Socialization or rewards? Predicting U.S. scientist-media interactions. Journal Mass Commun Q. 2009;86(2):299–314.
17. Besley JC, Oh SH, Nisbet M. Predicting scientists’ participation in public life. Public Underst Sci. 2013;22(8):971–87. doi: 10.1177/0963662512459315 23825262
18. Bentley RA, Garnett P, O’Brien MJ, Brock WA, Nowak M. Word Diffusion and Climate Science. Lehmann S, editor. PLoS One. 2012;7(11):e47966. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0047966 23144839
19. Besley JC, Nisbet MC. How scientists view the public, the media and the political process. Public Underst Sci [Internet]. 2013;22(6):644–59. doi: 10.1177/0963662511418743 23885050
20. De Boer M, Mccarthy M, Brennan M, Kelly AL, Ritson C. Public understanding of food risk issues and food risk messages on the island of Ireland: The views of food safety experts. J Food Saf. 2005;25(4):241–65.
21. Cook G, Pieri E, Robbins PT. ‘The Scientists Think and the Public Feels’: Expert Perceptions of the Discourse of GM Food. Discourse Soc. 2004;15(4):433–49.
22. Dudo A, Besley JC. Scientists’ Prioritization of Communication Objectives for Public Engagement. d’Acquisto F, editor. PLoS One. 2016;11(2):e0148867. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0148867 26913869
23. Collins K, Shiffman D, Rock J. How Are Scientists Using Social Media in the Workplace? Goffredo S, editor. PLoS One. 2016;11(10):e0162680. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0162680 27732598
24. Torres-Albero C, Fernandez-Esquinas M, Rey-Rocha J, Martin-Sempere MJ. Dissemination practices in the Spanish research system: scientists trapped in a golden cage. Public Underst Sci. 2011;20(1):12–25.
25. Davies SR. Constructing Communication: Talking to Scientists About Talking to the Public. Sci Commun. 2008;29(4):413–34.
26. Blok A, Jensen M, Kaltoft P. Social identities and risk: expert and lay imaginations on pesticide use. Public Underst Sci. 2008 Apr;17(2):189–209. doi: 10.1177/0963662506070176 19391377
27. Grand A, Davies G, Holliman R, Adams A. Mapping public engagement with research in a UK university. PLoS One. 2015;10(4):1–19.
28. Burningham K, Barnett J, Carr A, Clift R, Wehrmeyer W. Industrial constructions of publics and public knowledge: a qualitative investigation of practice in the UK chemicals industry. Public Underst Sci. 2007;16(1):23–43.
29. Donkor FK, Howarth C, Ebhuoma E, Daly M, Vaughan C, Pretorius L, et al. Climate Services and Communication for Development: The Role of Early Career Researchers in Advancing the Debate. Environ Commun. 2019;13(5):561–6.
30. Funk C, Rainie L, Page D. Public and Scientists’ Views on Science and Society | Pew Research Center. 2015.
31. National Science Board. Science and Engineering Indicators. 2018
32. European Commission. Europeans, Science and Technology. 2005
33. European Comission. Science and Technology Special Eurobarometer. 2010
34. European Commission. Europeans and Biotechnology in 2010. Winds of change?. 2010
35. European Commission. Europeans’ attitudes towards climate change. 145; 2008
36. Fundación Española para la Ciencia y la Tecnología (FECYT). Percepción social de la ciencia y la tecnología 2016. 2017;380.
37. Miller JD. The measurement of civic scientific literacy. Public Underst Sci. 1998 Jul;7(3):203–23.
38. Capeáns R, López C, Remiro G. Libro Blanco de las Unidades de Cultura Científica y de la Innovacción UCC+i. Fundación Española para la Ciencia y la Tecnología, editor. Madrid: Fundación Española para la Ciencia y la Tecnología; 2012. 41 p.
39. Martín Izard JF. Técnicas de encuesta: cuestionarios y entrevista. In: Nieto Martín S, editor. Principios, métodos y técnicas esenciales para la investigación educativa. Madrid: DYKINSON; 2010. p. 145–68.
40. Instituto Nacional de Estadística. Gastos internos totales y personal en I+D por comunidades autónomas y tipo de indicador. Estadística de I+D 2014. 2014.
41. Dillman DA, Smyth JD, Christian LM, Dillman DA. Internet, mail, and mixed-mode surveys: the tailored design method. Wiley & Sons; 2009. 499 p.
42. European Comission. Scientific research in the media. Report. Special Eurobarometer 282/Wave 67.2. Brussels; 2007.
43. Revuelta G. Impacts of science communication on publics, cities and actors. J Sci Commun. 2014;13(1):1–5.
44. Ecklund EH, James SA, Lincoln AE. How academic biologists and physicists view science outreach. Amaral LAN, editor. PLoS One. 2012;7(5):e36240. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0036240 22590526
Článok vyšiel v časopise
PLOS One
2019 Číslo 11
- Metamizol jako analgetikum první volby: kdy, pro koho, jak a proč?
- Nejasný stín na plicích – kazuistika
- Masturbační chování žen v ČR − dotazníková studie
- Úspěšná resuscitativní thorakotomie v přednemocniční neodkladné péči
- Dlouhodobá recidiva a komplikace spojené s elektivní operací břišní kýly
Najčítanejšie v tomto čísle
- A daily diary study on maladaptive daydreaming, mind wandering, and sleep disturbances: Examining within-person and between-persons relations
- A 3’ UTR SNP rs885863, a cis-eQTL for the circadian gene VIPR2 and lincRNA 689, is associated with opioid addiction
- A substitution mutation in a conserved domain of mammalian acetate-dependent acetyl CoA synthetase 2 results in destabilized protein and impaired HIF-2 signaling
- Molecular validation of clinical Pantoea isolates identified by MALDI-TOF