DOCSLIB.ORG

Ch7 Science Communication in South Africa.Pdf

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Ch7 Science Communication in South Africa.Pdf The quackery virus: An overview of pseudoscientific 7 health messages on Twitter George Claassen Introduction Quackery, the spread of pseudoscience and alternative ‘facts’ in the health field, has become a growing concern and challenge not only to scientists but also to journalists and the community at large. Trying to counter and refute misleading, harmful and often fraudulent health messages and marketing in the age of social media has been the source of various studies as well as intensive scrutiny of specifically the phenomenon of Twitter as a medium through which these messages are spread (Anderson et al., 2010; Bik & Goldstein, 2013; Birch, 2011; Colditz et al., 2018; Joubert & Costas, 2019; Mudde, 2019; Nagy et al., 2018; Steinman, 2018; Su et al., 2017; Van Rooyen, 2017). Furthermore, the public understanding of science is vital in any society, not only to counter fake news and pseudoscientific claims and quackery, but also to assist in finding ways to bring sound and trustworthy scientific findings to the attention of uninformed and often ignorant citizens bombarded by social media (Bauer, 2000; British Royal Society, 1995, 2007; Bucchi, 2004; Claassen, 2011; Gastrow, 2015; Hartz & Chappell, 1997; Hesmondhalgh, 2008; Joubert, 2018; Joubert & Guenther, 2017; Mooney & Kirshenbaum, 2009; Nelkin, 1995; Shukla & Bauer, 150 7 PSEUDOSCIENTIFIC HEALTH MESSAGES ON TWITTER 2007; Steinman, 2014; Webster, 2006). Bauer (2008: 119) states that this brings new emphasis to the reasons why science should be important to society and the public, as it is ‘important for making informed consumer choices’. Applied to the health field where quackery and pseudoscience can cause serious harm, this becomes even more imperative. Yet the way the media are used by consumers, have changed drastically over the past decade, as Bell points out (2016: n.p.): Our news ecosystem has changed more dramatically in the past five years than perhaps at any time in the past five hundred [...] Social media hasn’t just swallowed journalism, it has swallowed everything’ (emphasis added). This overview analyses how social media, and specifically Twitter, is a social media environment and platform where false health claims and quackery often spread virally and become part of what Habermas (1991: 30) describes as the public sphere, now vastly expanded from his ‘coffee houses, […] salons and […] table societies’ to the highly active viral environment of false health messages propagated on social media and specifically, for the purposes on this study, Twitter. Identifying quackery and pseudoscience, what Pigliucci calls ‘nonsense on stilts’ (2010), and distinguishing it from valid evidence-based science, has become one of the most important science communication challenges over the past decade, but it also is an endeavour in morality. When people and specifically celebrities who are followed by millions on social media platforms by an often gullible public, make false claims on health, it becomes not only imperative that scientists and informed journalists counter their non-evidence-based claims (Franzen et al., 2007; Hall, 2014), but it also becomes a moral issue (Claassen, 2019a; Pigliucci, 2010; Pigliucci & Boudry, 2013). Quoting the 19th century British scientist Thomas Henry Huxley on the moral duty of everyone in society to make a distinction between science and non-science, Pigliucci (2010: 1) touches upon an often-neglected 151 SCIENCE COMMUNICATION IN SOUTH AFRICA reason why science communication is so important in society: The foundation of morality is to […] give up pretending to believe that for which there is no evidence, and repeating unintelligible propositions about this beyond the possibilities of knowledge. Pigliucci (2010: 1) goes further, emphasising how the dangers inherent in accepting pseudoscience and quackery can harm, and that to accept ‘pseudoscientific untruths or conversely rejecting scientific truths, has consequences for us all, psychological, financial, and in terms of quality of life. Indeed […] pseudosci- ence can literally kill people’. Pigliucci and Boudry (2013) warn about the difficulty of distinguishing science from pseudoscience or non-science, and of demarcating the fields clearly, one of the reasons quackery can spread so quickly like a virus on Twitter. This results in a public that cannot make a clear distinction between evidence-based science, and quackery and fraudulent pseudoscientific claims. Bucchi (1998: 17) calls this distinction a ‘demarcation between orthodoxy (science) and deviance (non-science)’. Pigliucci and Boudry question the demarcation problem and Laudan’s (1983) premise about its demise and that it does not exist. Quacks and pseudoscientists are ‘master mimics’ at dressing their pseudo- scientific claims in a scientific cloak, fooling and confusing the public, and it remains an ever-growing challenge for lay people to make sense of the validity of claims (Claassen, 2019a: 202–203; Pigliucci & Boudry, 2013). Bronner (2011: 2) refers to a paradox between the ‘coexistence of progress in human knowledge with the persistence of certain ideas that are either false or questionable’ as conspiracy theories about the moon landings, the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001 and, in the health field, homoeopathy and other pseudosci- entific practices illustrate (Gray, 2019). Ruse (2013) analyses the Gaia Hypothesis and why it was so strongly rejected by scientists, mostly evolutionary biologists, but widely accepted by members of the public, also on Twitter, as 152 7 PSEUDOSCIENTIFIC HEALTH MESSAGES ON TWITTER another ‘illustration of the intermixed world – although most of the time because of a lack of knowledge about the scientif- ic methods and evidence-based science among the public – of science and pseudoscience’ (as cited by Claassen, 2019a: 203). The health risk caused by the way news is reported is also emphasised by Nelkin (1995: 47), and science and specifically health-related journalism are often criticised for ‘inaccurate or misleading’ reporting (Dentzer, 2009: 1). This danger is seriously enlarged by false health claims made on Twitter. How to counter this? Studies have shown that it is indeed beneficial for scientists and scientific institutions to have an online social media presence (Bik & Goldstein, 2013; Joubert, 2018; Joubert & Costas, 2019; Mudde, 2019; Van Rooyen, 2017), that Twitter can foster better public engagement with science (Jarreau, 2016), and that communicating science on Twitter ‘works partly by relaying science to a more diverse audience’ (Novak, 2015). They have also shown that social media users are often interme- diaries making visible and assessing evidence of social impact (Pulido et al., 2018). As one study points out, ‘Scientists are increasingly using Twitter as a tool for communicating science. Twitter can promote scholarly discussion, disseminate research rapidly, and extend and diversify the scope of audiences reached. However, scientists also caution that if Twitter does not accurately convey science due to the inherent brevity of this media, misinformation could cascade quickly through social media’ (Bombaci et al., 2016: 216). The presence of scientists on Twitter and their role in making science news more quickly available and more accessible is leading to serious and often vigorous debate in the scientific community, especially after the publication of the ‘Kardashian Index’ (or K-Index) by Hall (2014). He defines the K-Index as a ‘measure of discrepancy between a scientist’s social media profile and publication record based on the direct comparison of numbers of citations and Twitter followers’ (Hall, 2014: 1). Hall (2014: 1) goes further, emphasising that in ‘the age of social media there are people who have high-profile scientific blogs or 153 SCIENCE COMMUNICATION IN SOUTH AFRICA twitter feeds but have not actually published many peer-reviewed papers of significance; in essence, scientists who are seen as leaders in their field simply because of their notoriety’. Yet Twitter brings an important advantage to scientists and science in general to announce their or other scientists’ studies and findings, breaking down the pay-wall problem for the general public of accessibility of scientific research by posting a link to the peer-reviewed article. This also assists journalists following Twitter to have quick and easy access to peer-reviewed studies which were before the age of social media often hidden behind expensive pay-walls. Twitter as choice by scientists in science communication Twitter is a special case with regard to science communication utilised by scientists themselves, as pointed out by various studies (Allgaier et al., 2013; Collins et al., 2016; Joubert, 2018; Vraga & Bode, 2017; Yeo et al., 2014), and as emphasised by Joubert and Costas (2019: 2): Twitter, a microblogging platform and social networking tool, has emerged as a particularly popular and powerful science communication platform that researchers (or scholars) embrace more readily than other social media platforms, possibly because it is viewed as more professional and more suitable for science communication than other tools such as Facebook. There is reason for this popularity of scientists utilising social media and specifically Twitter to discuss and announce scientif- ic developments. Traditional ‘news publishers have lost control over distribution of news […] Now the news is filtered through algorithms and platforms which are opaque and unpredictable’, as Bell points out (2016).
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The State of Inclusive Science Communication: a Landscape Study
    The State of Inclusive Science Communication: A Landscape Study Katherine Canfield and Sunshine Menezes Metcalf Institute, University of Rhode Island Graphics by Christine Liu This report was developed for the University of Rhode Island’s Metcalf Institute with generous support from The Kavli Foundation. Cite as: Canfield, K. & Menezes, S. 2020. The State of Inclusive Science Communication: A Landscape Study. Metcalf Institute, University of Rhode Island. Kingston, RI. 77 pp. Executive Summary Inclusive science communication (ISC) is a new and broad term that encompasses all efforts to engage specific audiences in conversations or activities about science, technology, engineering, mathematics, and medicine (STEMM) topics, including, but not limited to, public engagement, informal science learning, journalism, and formal science education. Unlike other approaches toward science communication, however, ISC research and practice is grounded in inclusion, equity, and intersectionality, making these concerns central to the goals, design, implementation, evaluation, and refinement of science communication efforts. Together, the diverse suite of insights and practices that inform ISC comprise an emerging movement. While there is a growing recognition of the value and urgency of inclusive approaches, there is little documented knowledge about the potential catalysts and barriers for this work. Without documentation, synthesis, and critical reflection, the movement cannot proceed as quickly as is warranted. The University of Rhode Island’s Metcalf
    [Show full text]
  • Advancing Science Communication.Pdf
    SCIENCETreise, Weigold COMMUNICATION / SCIENCE COMMUNICATORS Scholars of science communication have identified many issues that may help to explain why sci- ence communication is not as “effective” as it could be. This article presents results from an exploratory study that consisted of an open-ended survey of science writers, editors, and science communication researchers. Results suggest that practitioners share many issues of concern to scholars. Implications are that a clear agenda for science communication research now exists and that empirical research is needed to improve the practice of communicating science. Advancing Science Communication A Survey of Science Communicators DEBBIE TREISE MICHAEL F. WEIGOLD University of Florida The writings of science communication scholars suggest twodominant themes about science communication: it is important and it is not done well (Hartz and Chappell 1997; Nelkin 1995; Ziman 1992). This article explores the opinions of science communication practitioners with respect to the sec- ond of these themes, specifically, why science communication is often done poorly and how it can be improved. The opinions of these practitioners are important because science communicators serve as a crucial link between the activities of scientists and the public that supports such activities. To intro- duce our study, we first review opinions as to why science communication is important. We then examine the literature dealing with how well science communication is practiced. Authors’Note: We would like to acknowledge NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center for provid- ing the funds todothis research. We alsowant tothank Rick Borcheltforhis help with the collec - tion of data. Address correspondence to Debbie Treise, University of Florida, College of Journalism and Communications, P.O.
    [Show full text]
  • Science Communication : an Introduction (275 Pages)
    9”x6” b3759 Science Communication, An Introduction 1 Chapter 1 Setting the Scene Anne M. Dijkstra, Liesbeth de Bakker, Frans van Dam, and Eric A. Jensen 1.1 Introduction Science communication is at the heart of many of the 21st century’s most consequential issues. From climate change to artificial intelligence and biomedicine, science and technology are playing an important role in people’s lives to an ever-greater extent. Science and technology are also considered important drivers for enhancing innovation. Moreover, citizens’ role in engaging in democratic decisions about science and technology is vital, as such developments affect all people. This important role of science and technology leads to questions such as the following: How do people make sense of scientific and technological developments? How can societal needs and concerns be included when developing science and technology? Science Communication Downloaded from www.worldscientific.com How should communication about science and technology be conducted? Science communication practice and research is on the front line, helping both scientists and citizens grapple with such questions. Communicating about science and technology comes in many different forms. Telling people about science is one important task. In addition, it is widely accepted that people should be able to engage with science and technology topics at a democratic level because science and technology affects by UNIVERSITY OF TWENTE on 04/01/20. Re-use and distribution is strictly not permitted, except for Open Access articles. all our lives. Communications on science and technology have been ongoing for a long time and have gained importance in recent years.
    [Show full text]
  • Internet ‐ Turning Science Communication Inside‐Out?
    Internet ‐ turning science communication inside‐out? Brian Trench In the four decades since two university computers were first linked to each other over the prototype internet, scientific researchers have been innovators, early adopters and prolific adapters of internet technologies. Electronic mail, file transfer protocol, telnet, Gopher and the World Wide Web were all developed and applied first in research communities. The Web's development for sharing of information in the high‐energy physics community unexpectedly heralded the internet's extension into many aspects of commerce, community, entertainment and governance. But despite the rapid proliferation and diversification of both over the past 15 years, the internet in its various forms has scientific communication indelibly inscribed into its fabric, and internet communication is thoroughly integrated into the practice of science. This chapter reviews some effects of the internet's emergence as a principal means of professional scientific communication, and of public communication of science and technology. It notes several paradoxes that characterise these developments, for example the contradictory trends towards easier collaboration across continents, and towards greater fragmentation. It notes the very significant disturbances caused by electronic publishing in the all‐important field of scientific journals. It suggests that these and other developments have made more completely porous than before the boundaries between professional and public communication, facilitating public access to previously private spaces, and thus 'turning science communication inside‐out'. At home in the internet Already, a decade ago, it could be claimed that 'it is now difficult for scientists to remember how they worked without the internet' (Rowland 1998). Scientists are socialised into a world in which communication via the internet is 'natural'.
    [Show full text]
  • Total Scicomm: a Strategy for Communicating Open Science
    publications Communication Total SciComm: A Strategy for Communicating Open Science Manh-Toan Ho * , Manh-Tung Ho and Quan-Hoang Vuong Centre for Interdisciplinary Social Research, Phenikaa University, Hanoi 100803, Vietnam; [email protected] (M.-T.H.); [email protected] (Q.-H.V.) * Correspondence: [email protected] Abstract: This paper seeks to introduce a strategy of science communication: Total SciComm or all-out science communication. We proposed that to maximize the outreach and impact, scientists should use different media to communicate different aspects of science, from core ideas to methods. The paper uses an example of a debate surrounding a now-retracted article in the Nature journal, in which open data, preprints, social media, and blogs are being used for a meaningful scientific conversation. The case embodied the central idea of Total SciComm: the scientific community employs every medium to communicate scientific ideas and engages all scientists in the process. Keywords: preprints; open science; science communication; social media; Total SciComm 1. Introduction Growing skepticism towards scientific findings makes capturing attention from the public an urgent and serious issue for scientists. The attention will help raise the scien- Citation: Ho, M.-T.; Ho, M.-T.; tists’ profiles and provide scientists a channel to communicate through scientific ideas. Vuong, Q.-H. Total SciComm: A On YouTube, and a new form of radio—podcast—the rise of the Intellectual Dark Web Strategy for Communicating Open group is a prominent example of an effort for good and effective science communication [1]. Science. Publications 2021, 9, 31.
    [Show full text]
  • Citizen Science: Framing the Public, Information Exchange, and Communication in Crowdsourced Science
    University of Tennessee, Knoxville TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange Doctoral Dissertations Graduate School 8-2014 Citizen Science: Framing the Public, Information Exchange, and Communication in Crowdsourced Science Todd Ernest Suomela University of Tennessee - Knoxville, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_graddiss Part of the Communication Commons, and the Library and Information Science Commons Recommended Citation Suomela, Todd Ernest, "Citizen Science: Framing the Public, Information Exchange, and Communication in Crowdsourced Science. " PhD diss., University of Tennessee, 2014. https://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_graddiss/2864 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange. It has been accepted for inclusion in Doctoral Dissertations by an authorized administrator of TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange. For more information, please contact [email protected]. To the Graduate Council: I am submitting herewith a dissertation written by Todd Ernest Suomela entitled "Citizen Science: Framing the Public, Information Exchange, and Communication in Crowdsourced Science." I have examined the final electronic copy of this dissertation for form and content and recommend that it be accepted in partial fulfillment of the equirr ements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, with a major in Communication and Information. Suzie Allard, Major Professor We have read this dissertation and recommend its acceptance: Carol Tenopir, Mark Littmann, Harry Dahms Accepted for the Council: Carolyn R. Hodges Vice Provost and Dean of the Graduate School (Original signatures are on file with official studentecor r ds.) Citizen Science: Framing the Public, Information Exchange, and Communication in Crowdsourced Science ADissertationPresentedforthe Doctor of Philosophy Degree The University of Tennessee, Knoxville Todd Ernest Suomela August 2014 c by Todd Ernest Suomela, 2014 All Rights Reserved.
    [Show full text]
  • The Sciences of Science Communication
    The sciences of science communication Baruch Fischhoff1 Department of Engineering and Public Policy, and Department of Social and Decision Sciences, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA 15213-3890 Edited by Dietram A. Scheufele, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI, and accepted by the Editorial Board May 23, 2013 (received for review September 19, 2012) The May 2012 Sackler Colloquium on “The Science of Science Com- The same mixed emotions may accompany phenomena that munication” brought together scientists with research to communi- arise from the confluence of technology and society. How is it cate and scientists whose research could facilitate that communication. that human actions can both discover antibiotics and encourage The latter include decision scientists who can identify the scientific microbial resistance to them, create “smart” electricity grids and results that an audience needs to know, from among all of the threaten them with cyberattacks, and produce a food supply scientific results that it would be nice to know; behavioral scientists whose sheer abundance undermines the health of some people, who can design ways to convey those results and then evaluate the while others still go hungry? success of those attempts; and social scientists who can create the Without some grasp of the relevant science, it is hard to make channels needed for trustworthy communications. This overview informed decisions about these issues. Those include private offers an introduction to these communication sciences and their decisions, such
    [Show full text]
  • Effective Ways of Communicating Science to Common People
    CORE Metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk Provided by Online Publishing @ NISCAIR Journal of Scientific Temper Vol 6(3-4), Jul-Dec 2018, pp. 190-204 REVIEW ARTICLE Effective Ways of Communicating Science to Common People PRAVEEN B. GAWALI AND RAHUL RAWAT Indian Institute of Geomagnetism, Navi Mumbai Email: [email protected] ABSTRACT Due importance is not accorded by scientists to public outreach activities, probably due to their busy research and administrative schedule. However, even if they want to devote their time they cannot do it in a sustained manner because of “(over) specialization”. Creative science communication is hindered by alleged ‘egoist’ feeling that it is an act of “copying” and “over-simplification” making the purists cringe to the core. However, it must be borne in mind that all current science is combinatorial. It derives from a diverse set of disciplines and research that has already been done by generations. It’s a networked knowledge that needs to be effectively communicated to the masses by combining the disparate pieces of inspiration, knowledge, skill and talent that are accumulated over the lifetime. These need to be stitched together or recombined into new creations for easy understanding and consumption of the common people. Science communicators need to cross-pollinate to create and evolve new ideas. Science communication to the common people needs an assortment of techniques that can appeal to the “interested” and “non-interested” participants as well. Both these constituents are an important segment, hence efforts should be made to make science communication a participatory event rather than a unidirectional flow of information.
    [Show full text]
  • REPORT Landscape of Science Communication Fellowship
    REPORT Landscape of Science Communication Fellowship Programs in North America Anthony Dudo, Ph.D. Associate Professor Stan Richards School of Advertising & Public Relations The University of Texas at Austin John Besley, Ph.D. Brandt Professor Department of Advertising & Public Relations Michigan State University Nichole Bennett, M.A. Doctoral Student Stan Richards School of Advertising & Public Relations The University of Texas at Austin This project is supported by the Rita Allen Foundation. Findings and opinions are those of the primary investigators. TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 3 KEY FINDINGS 4 INTRODUCTION 5 KEY INSIGHTS 6 RECOMMENDATIONS 15 APPENDIX 18 Landscape of Science Communication Fellowship Programs in North America 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Science communication fellowship programs play an essential role in providing in-depth and authentic communication training experiences for scientists. While calls for scientists to increase engagement with the public are abundant, gaps may remain between a scientist’s interest in communication and their skills to effectively do so. In this context, science communication fellowships give scientists supported, real-life experiences communicating scientific research to bridge these gaps. These programs also provide the societal benefit of embedding scientific experts in key science-society intersections, such as government, media, festivals, and museums. However, minimal research has investigated these programs. To better understand the unique offerings and barriers faced by science communication fellowship programs in North America, the Rita Allen Foundation commissioned this landscape research to increase understanding of science communication fellowship programs. The aim is to unearth insights from key personnel associated with these programs that will help clarify current program structures and practices; enable useful comparisons across programs; and identify opportunities for research, growth, and maximized impact.
    [Show full text]
  • Survey of Factors Affecting Science Communication by Scientists and Engineers Science Commun
    Survey of factors affecting science communication by scientists and engineers science commun icationexcellence in science 1 foreword Scientists need to engage more fully with the public. The Royal Society recognises this, and is keen to ensure that such engagement is helpful and effective. The role of science in public policy is becoming ever more pervasive. Many scientists are willing to engage in dialogue and debate, but they need encouragement and guidance, and they need to feel that their efforts are valued. The Society established this study, with the support of Research Councils UK and the Wellcome Trust, to provide evidence on current attitudes and practice among scientists. A representative sample of UK researchers, at different stages in their careers, completed an online questionnaire and took part in interviews to establish the level of current ‘outreach’ activity, and how such activities were perceived. The study was overseen by a Consultative Group, chaired by Professor Sir David Wallace FRS, and comprising senior representatives from science organisations across the UK. This report outlines the key findings of the study, and the conclusions and recommendations of the Consultative Group. The Royal Society has resolved to take several initiatives in response to the Consultative Group’s recommendations. We hope the findings will be helpful to other funding organisations, universities and research institutions in their efforts to promote and enhance the engagement of scientists with the public. Professor Martin Rees President of the Royal Society 2 contents 4 introduction - section 1 8 key findings - section 2 13 conclusions and recommendations - section 3 18 appendix 1 - section 4 20 appendix 2 - section 5 45 notes - section 5 3 1 intro duction Survey of factors affecting science communication by scientists and engineers 1 Survey of factors affecting science communication by scientists and engineers.
    [Show full text]
  • The Communication in Science Inquiry Project (CISIP): a Project to Enhance Scientific Literacy Through the Creation of Science Classroom Discourse Communities
    International Journal of Environmental & Science EducaThetion Communication in Science Inquiry Project Vol. 4, No. 3, July 2009, 259-274 International Journal of Environmental & Science Education SPECIAL ISSUE ON SCIENTIFIC LITERACY Vol.Editors 3,: No.Richard 3, JulyK. Coll 2008, & Neil xx-xx Taylor The Communication in Science Inquiry Project (CISIP): A Project to Enhance Scientific Literacy through the Creation of Science Classroom Discourse Communities Dale R. Baker Arizona State University, USA Elizabeth B. Lewis University of Nebraska, USA Senay Purzer Purdue University, USA Nievita Bueno Watts, Gita Perkins, Sibel Uysal, Sissy Wong, Rachelle Beard Arizona State University, USA Michael Lang National Center for Teacher Education, Maricopa Community College District, USA Received 13 January 2009; Accepted 04 February 2009 This study reports on the context and impact of the Communication in Science Inquiry Project (CISIP) professional development to promote teachers’ and students’ scientific literacy through the creation of science classroom discourse communities. The theoretical underpinnings of the professional development model are presented and key professional development activities are described. Data are provided on teachers’ fidelity of imple- mentation of the CISIP instructional strategies, their understanding of the nature of science communication, and their ability to write scientific investigation reports. Student data includes an analysis of scientific arguments and the perception of their classroom as a science classroom discourse community. Two instruments to measure fidelity of im- plementation are introduced; the Discourse in Inquiry Science Classrooms for classroom observations of teachers and My Science Classroom Survey to measure students’ percep- tions of their teachers’ use of the CISIP instructional strategies in their classroom.
    [Show full text]
  • Publication: Communicating Science in Times of COVID-19
    COMMUNICATING SCIENCE IN TIMES OF COVID-19 A SELECTIVE OVERVIEW OF GOOD PRACTICES Introduction The COST Cross-Cutting Activity (CCA) on Science will encourage stakeholder engagement and dialogue Communication brings together outstanding exper- across Europe, set priorities, and define tools and chan- tise from over 50 organisations across EU Member nels necessary to connect researchers, journalists, di- States and beyond. We work to raise awareness of sci- verse stakeholders and citizens and policymakers. ence communication and develop best practices for policy makers to stimulate research on science com- Between 2019 and 2021, the CCA network on science munication in Europe. communication will facilitate exchange between re- searchers, journalists, media centres, policy makers, For this report we invited a selective group of CCA research funding bodies, stakeholder organisations Members to provide their perspective on the role and public institutions in order to meet the objectives and relevance of science communication during outlined below, as well as to facilitate ‘matchmaking’ the current COVID-19 pandemic. Common for the of relevant actors across Europe to enhance the ef- contributions are their focus on new approaches to fectiveness of the sector. science-based communication as an essential pre- requisite for addressing contemporary health chal- Europe needs a new ambitious research agenda for lenges as they cut across disciplines and stakeholders. the science of science communication that will en- sure robust, and socially sustainable relations be- Engagement, exchange and communication are in- tween science, policy and society for the next decade. deed needed to facilitate trustworthy science advice The CCA represents the European science communi- and to inform the public about the scientific complex- cation community’s commitment to contributing to a ity of the current crisis.
    [Show full text]