Explore the vast range of titles available.

Is public engagement with science an effective response to threats against science? One form of public engagement—citizen science—might be especially useful for addressing issues of inequality that threaten public support for science. Citizen science is both public participation in the scientific process and public participation in the governance of science. In principle, citizen science empowers marginalized communities to participate in the scientific process, using the authority of science to challenge government, industry, or other institutions that exploit imbalances of social power. In practice, however, citizen science can also be used to redirect attention away from actions that address inequalities and to reinforce modes of knowledge production that exclude alternative ways of knowing relevant to those without social power. Thus, rhetoric about citizen science as a solution to threats against science needs to be tempered with attention to specific contexts and opportunities.

Although communicating research is a key part of public science, current graduate curricula in the agricultural sciences usually have a narrow focus on communication appropriate for presenting to scientific and academic audiences, such as in the form of the dreaded “seminar.” Yet the importance and impact of agriculture extends well beyond research communities, and communicating with other potential audiences is essential for realizing the full impact of research. Because public speaking is among the greatest fears for many people, it is critical to provide students with the tools needed to communicate effectively with diverse audiences, particularly as only a fraction of them will go on to give regular research seminars once they enter the professional world. Better communication can lead to more constructive engagement with the public as well as with policy‐makers, toward improved understanding of the science they are funding and from which they are benefiting. Purposeful instruction in public speaking should help alleviate the common anxieties that student presenters often experience. Here, we summarize general communication strategies that can be incorporated into any graduate agricultural science course to help address this need. Core Ideas Better communication can lead to more constructive public engagement of scientists in society. Most agricultural science communication instruction focuses on formal presentations and peer‐reviewed manuscripts. An improved understanding of the audience is critical to gain confidence and communicate effectively. Graduate students are often apprehensive about public speaking. More purposeful instruction by communication professionals would be beneficial.

Members of the public participate in scientific research in many different contexts, stemming from traditions as varied as participatory action research and citizen science. Particularly in conservation and natural resource management contexts, where research often addresses complex social–ecological questions, the emphasis on and nature of this participation can significantly affect both the way that projects are designed and the outcomes that projects achieve. We review and integrate recent work in these and other fields, which has converged such that we propose the term public participation in scientific research (PPSR) to discuss initiatives from diverse fields and traditions. We describe three predominant models of PPSR and call upon case studies suggesting that—regardless of the research context—project outcomes are influenced by (1) the degree of public participation in the research process and (2) the quality of public participation as negotiated during project design. To illustrate relationships between the quality of participation and outcomes, we offer a framework that considers how scientific and public interests are negotiated for project design toward multiple, integrated goals. We suggest that this framework and models, used in tandem, can support deliberate design of PPSR efforts that will enhance their outcomes for scientific research, individual participants, and social–ecological systems.

In this study, we explore the social construction of the monarch butterfly as a conservation icon in order to understand how the butterfly has come to be endowed with the power to shape public conversations and potentially alter policy and practice. Our analysis is guided by the sociological concepts of coproduction and boundary objects, which reveal how this butterfly has animated and sustained conversations across diverse organizational boundaries. We find that engagement with narratives of beauty, natural wonder, scientific discovery, conservation imperatives, and civic duty has allowed the monarch to enroll actors in a broad network that gives rise to surprising, emergent properties. These properties make the monarch a powerful communication vehicle and a potent ally in environmental politics. Our analysis of the historical and contemporary construction of the monarch as an icon contributes to ongoing efforts to bring resources from critical social science to bear on the strengthening of science-policy–practice interfaces.

A key broadening participation challenge for science communication is to reach non-traditional audiences beyond those already interested in science. In this study we test a “Guerilla Science” approach that blends elements of access , by removing barriers to participation, with those of inclusion , by designing participant-centered activities, for reaching an art-interested adult audience at the FIGMENT art festival in New York City. Our results show that participants at Guerilla Science were similar to festival goers overall in their connection to and interest in science, indicating the effectiveness of the approach for engaging non-traditional audiences and those who might not self-select into science activities.

We report findings from a national telephone survey on levels of knowledge about and attitudes toward nanotechnology that demonstrate how people make decisions about emerging technologies. Our findings confirm previous research that suggests that people form opinions and attitudes even in the absence of relevant scientific or policy-related information. In fact, our data show that cognitive shortcuts or heuristics - often provided by mass media - are currently a key factor in influencing how the public thinks about nanotechnology and about its risks and benefits, and in determining the level of support among the public for further funding for research in this area.[PUBLICATION ABSTRACT]

Objective To measure the effect of free access to the scientific literature on article downloads and citations.Design Randomised controlled trial.Setting 11 journals published by the American Physiological Society.Participants 1619 research articles and reviews.Main outcome measures Article readership (measured as downloads of full text, PDFs, and abstracts) and number of unique visitors (internet protocol addresses). Citations to articles were gathered from the Institute for Scientific Information after one year.Interventions Random assignment on online publication of articles published in 11 scientific journals to open access (treatment) or subscription access (control).Results Articles assigned to open access were associated with 89% more full text downloads (95% confidence interval 76% to 103%), 42% more PDF downloads (32% to 52%), and 23% more unique visitors (16% to 30%), but 24% fewer abstract downloads (−29% to −19%) than subscription access articles in the first six months after publication. Open access articles were no more likely to be cited than subscription access articles in the first year after publication. Fifty nine per cent of open access articles (146 of 247) were cited nine to 12 months after publication compared with 63% (859 of 1372) of subscription access articles. Logistic and negative binomial regression analysis of article citation counts confirmed no citation advantage for open access articles.Conclusions Open access publishing may reach more readers than subscription access publishing. No evidence was found of a citation advantage for open access articles in the first year after publication. The citation advantage from open access reported widely in the literature may be an artefact of other causes.

Informal science is a burgeoning field that operates across a broad range of venues and envisages learning outcomes for individuals, schools, families, and society. The evidence base that describes informal science, its promise, and effects is informed by a range of disciplines and perspectives, including field-based research, visitor studies, and psychological and anthropological studies of learning. Learning Science in Informal Environments draws together disparate literatures, synthesizes the state of knowledge, and articulates a common framework for the next generation of research on learning science in informal environments across a life span. Contributors include recognized experts in a range of disciplines-research and evaluation, exhibit designers, program developers, and educators. They also have experience in a range of settings-museums, after-school programs, science and technology centers, media enterprises, aquariums, zoos, state parks, and botanical gardens. Learning Science in Informal Environments is an invaluable guide for program and exhibit designers, evaluators, staff of science-rich informal learning institutions and community-based organizations, scientists interested in educational outreach, federal science agency education staff, and K-12 science educators.