Science communication as political communication

Abstract

Scientific debates in modern societies often blur the lines between the science that is being debated and the political, moral, and legal implications that come with its societal applications. This manuscript traces the origins of this phenomenon to professional norms within the scientific discipline and to the nature and complexities of modern science and offers an expanded model of science communication that takes into account the political contexts in which science communication takes place. In a second step, it explores what we know from empirical work in political communication, public opinion research, and communication research about the dynamics that determine how issues are debated and attitudes are formed in political environments. Finally, it discusses how and why it will be increasingly important for science communicators to draw from these different literatures to ensure that the voice of the scientific community is heard in the broader societal debates surrounding science.advocacy | medialization | public attitudes | deficit model | motivated reasoning

Facial appearance affects science communication

“…Newspaper and television interviews, science festivals, dedicated websites, and online videos are just some of the channels by which researchers describe their work to nonexpert audiences (3). These communications shape people's beliefs about the physical and social world, and correspondingly influence personal decision-making and government action (4,5).…”

Principes de communication et rôle social du chercheur en matière de transfert de connaissances : une dualité source de questionnements éthiques

“…À l'autre bout du spectre, le chercheur agit sous l'angle de l'activisme politique (advocacy) et de la prise de position active. Ces stratégies incluent l'agenda-building, qui vise à occuper le terrain politique et médiatique [2], la collaboration avec les instances de diverses organisations sociopolitiques telles que les associations professionnelles, les syndicats et les organismes de représentation citoyenne, voire la participation dans ces instances. La collaboration avec de telles organisations peut générer des tensions éthiques lorsque, notamment, les objectifs du chercheur varient des visées de l'organisation [2].…”

“…Ces stratégies incluent l'agenda-building, qui vise à occuper le terrain politique et médiatique [2], la collaboration avec les instances de diverses organisations sociopolitiques telles que les associations professionnelles, les syndicats et les organismes de représentation citoyenne, voire la participation dans ces instances. La collaboration avec de telles organisations peut générer des tensions éthiques lorsque, notamment, les objectifs du chercheur varient des visées de l'organisation [2]. Pour les tenants de cette implication dans la sphère sociale et politique [3,8], les actions réalisées se justifient néanmoins de par la visée ultime des recherches, à savoir améliorer le mieux-être de la population.…”

In the footsteps of Einstein, Sagan and Barnard: Identifying South Africa’s most visible scientists

“…2 Consequently, the notion that scientists should engage with affected publics and debate the social implications of their work openly has become a central element of the moral economy of modern science. However, in a world where science has become increasingly competitive, contested and politicised 3 , the borders between science and politics are blurring and science is more closely coupled with politics and mass media 4 . As a result, public communication of science has also become a tool to compete for public attention and political support 5 and scientists' motivation to seek public visibility may be complex and diverse.…”