Explore the vast range of titles available.

Individuals are increasingly turning to online environments to find information about science and to follow scientific developments. It is therefore crucial for scientists and scientific institutions to consider empirical findings from research in online science communication when thinking about science in the public sphere. After providing a snapshot of the current media landscape, this paper reviews recent major research findings related to science communication in the online environment and their implications for science in the 21st century. Particular emphasis is given to the bias introduced by search engines, the nature of scientific content encountered online, and the potential impact of the Internet on audiences’ knowledge and attitudes toward science.

A better understanding is needed about how the online environment affects the communication of science information to the public. Nine in 10 internet users in the United States turn to search engines to find information ( 1 ), and 60% of the U.S. public seeking information about specific scientific issues lists the Internet as their primary source of information ( 2 ). This has created a new urgency for scientists to pay attention to these trends and to the emerging scholarly literature about communicating science in this brave new “online” world.

Advances in gene editing technologies for human, plant, and animal applications have led to calls from bench and social scientists, as well as a wide variety of societal stakeholders, for broad public engagement in the decision-making about these new technologies. Unfortunately, there is limited understanding among the groups calling for public engagement on CRISPR and other emerging technologies about 1) the goals of this engagement, 2) the modes of engagement and what we know from systematic social scientific evaluations about their effectiveness, and 3) how to connect the products of these engagement exercises to societal decision or policy making. Addressing all three areas, we systematize common goals, principles, and modalities of public engagement. We evaluate empirically the likely successes of various modalities. Finally, we outline three pathways forward that deserve close attention from the scientific community as we navigate the world of Life 2.0.

As the reach of science content in traditional media declines, many institutions and scientists are turning to YouTube as a powerful tool for communicating directly with non-expert publics. They do so with little empirical social science research guiding their efforts. This study explores how video characteristics and social endorsement cues provided by audience members might influence user engagement with online science videos. Shorter videos are more likely to be viewed. Social endorsement cues significantly relate to variations in user engagement, with likes having a consistent positive association with all types of engagement. Implications for science communication through YouTube are discussed.

In November of 2017, an interdisciplinary panel discussed the complexities of gene drive applications as part of the third Sackler Colloquium on “The Science of Science Communication.” The panel brought together a social scientist, life scientist, and journalist to discuss the issue from each of their unique perspectives. This paper builds on the ideas and conversations from the session to provide a more nuanced discussion about the context surrounding responsible communication and decision-making for cases of post-normal science. Deciding to use gene drives to control and suppress pests will involve more than a technical assessment of the risks involved, and responsible decision-making regarding their use will require concerted efforts from multiple actors. We provide a review of gene drives and their potential applications, as well as the role of journalists in communicating the extent of uncertainties around specific projects. We also discuss the roles of public opinion and online environments in public engagement with scientific processes. We conclude with specific recommendations about how to address current challenges and foster more effective communication and decision-making for complex, post-normal issues, such as gene drives.

Wastewater surveillance for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has garnered extensive public attention during the coronavirus disease pandemic as a proposed complement to existing disease surveillance systems. Over the past year, methods for detection and quantification of SARS-CoV-2 viral RNA in untreated sewage have advanced, and concentrations in wastewater have been shown to correlate with trends in reported cases. Despite the promise of wastewater surveillance, for these measurements to translate into useful public health tools, bridging the communication and knowledge gaps between researchers and public health responders is needed. We describe the key uses, barriers, and applicability of SARS-CoV-2 wastewater surveillance for supporting public health decisions and actions, including establishing ethics consideration for monitoring. Although wastewater surveillance to assess community infections is not a new idea, the coronavirus disease pandemic might be the initiating event to make this emerging public health tool a sustainable nationwide surveillance system, provided that these barriers are addressed.

Although views on human genome editing differ, all want public engagement The emergence of CRISPR-Cas9 gene editing has given new urgency to calls from social scientists, bench scientists, and scientific associations for broad public dialogue about human genome editing and its applications. Most recently, these calls were formalized in a consensus report on the science, ethics, and governance of human genome editing released by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences (NAS) and the National Academy of Medicine (NAM) that argued for public engagement to be incorporated into the policy-making process for human genome editing ( 1 ). So, where does the public stand on the issue of human genome editing? And how do those attitudes translate into the desire for more public input on human genome editing as new applications emerge in the policy arena?

The idea of faculty engaging in meaningful dialogue with different publics instead of simply communicating their research to interested audiences has gradually morphed from a novel concept to a mainstay within most parts of the academy. Given the wide variety of public engagement modalities, it may be unsurprising that we still lack a comprehensive and granular understanding of factors that influence faculty willingness to engage with public audiences. Those nuances are not always captured by quantitative surveys that rely on pre-determined categories to assess scholars’ willingness to engage. While closed-ended categories are useful to examine which factors influence the willingness to engage more than others, it is unlikely that pre-determined categories comprehensively represent the range of factors that undermine or encourage engagement, including perceptual influences, institutional barriers, and scholars’ lived experiences. To gain insight into these individual perspectives and lived experiences, we conducted focus group discussions with faculty members at a large midwestern land-grant university in the United States. Our findings provide context to previous studies of public engagement and suggest four themes for future research. These themes affirm the persistence of institutional barriers to engaging with the public, particularly the expectations in the promotion process for tenure-track faculty. However, we also find a perception that junior faculty and graduate students are challenging the status quo by introducing a new wave of attention to public engagement. This finding suggests a “trickle-up” effect through junior faculty and graduate students expecting institutional support for public engagement. Our findings highlight the need to consider how both top-down factors such as institutional expectations and bottom-up factors such as graduate student interest shape faculty members’ decisions to participate in public engagement activities.

Public engagement is increasingly recognized as a critical responsibility of the scientific community. Scientists in academic settings are well positioned to lead these efforts, but they are not always willing or able to participate in engagement. Public engagement can encompass a range of activities that may require different resources and skills, and which may have different outcomes for both scientists and non-scientists. Therefore, understanding which activities scientists are willing to participate in is critical for supporting their engagement efforts at the institutional level. Using survey data from a case study of science faculty at a large land-grant university in the United States, we conduct a systematic concept explication to better understand the dimensions of public engagement activities that scientists are willing to participate in. Based on thirteen different activities, we define and analyze the reliability of five dimensions of engagement: public scholarship, educational activities, direct engagement with public audiences, stakeholder-focused collaboration, and industry engagement. We also examine the validity of these five dimensions and how factors including institutional culture and norms, professional status, and attitudes towards engagement relate to scientists’ willingness to participate in engagement. Our results provide a robust categorization of willingness to engage as a blueprint for future research in this space.

Interest in public engagement with science activities has grown in recent decades, especially engagement through social media and among graduate students. Research on scientists' views of engagement, particularly two-way engagement and engagement through social media, is sparse, particularly research examining graduate students' views. We compare graduate students and faculty in biological and physical sciences at a land-grant, research-intensive university in their views on engagement. We find that both groups overwhelmingly believe that public input in decision-making around science issues is important, and hold largely pro-engagement attitudes. Graduate students, however, have somewhat more optimistic views of engagement through social media and on the appropriateness of discussing science controversy on social media. We discuss implications for graduate education and future engagement.