The public understanding of science is vital in any society, to counter pseudoscientific claims and quackery. The relationship between scientists and the media (the latter often the only channel through which scientific findings reach the public) was studied within a South African framework. An empirical survey was conducted by means of a comprehensive questionnaire sent to 740 South African scientists and researchers and 360 journalists. Because the media are important in the public understanding of science, the survey tried to establish the depth of and possible reasons for distrust between the two professions and what structures could be put in place to overcome this. This study found some significant differences in the views of scientists and journalists about the role of science in society, how it could be communicated to the public, and the reasons for this dichotomy. Finally, proposals to bridge the gap between scientists and the media are made: the media should give serious attention to raise the standards of science reporting by establishing science desks headed by properly trained science editors and well-trained science reporters. On the other hand, scientists should be trained to communicate better with the media and, therefore, the public.

No abstract

The paper highlights the feedback loop between media, politics, foreign influence and science in relation to the adoption of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) in food production in Uganda to demonstrate that socio-cultural considerations are important in the GMO science and technology debates. Based on the science-in-society model, the findings from a content analysis of newspaper articles over a four-year period, supplemented by interviews with scientists, activists from non-governmental organisations, journalists, and Members of Parliament's Science and Technology Committee, the study found that food is a politically thick issue. Both activists and scientists opportunistically use the media, the platforms where the public access and contribute content, to appeal to the politicians to legislate GMOs in their favour, arguing that the activists or the scientists' position is in the `public interest'. Often, such coverage produces a paradox for the public by accelerating uncertainty regarding the science and the products of genetic modification, especially when politicians fail to decide for fear of the political implications of their action as is the case in Uganda.

No abstract

No abstract