Explore the vast range of titles available.

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.

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?

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.

Using three U.S. public opinion survey datasets, this study examines whether use of specific social media platforms affects the gaps in factual and perceived knowledge of three wicked science issues among Americans with different racial and socioeconomic makeup. Less-educated Americans are less likely to gain factual knowledge but more likely to gain perceived knowledge from increased social media use than more-educated Americans. Racial minorities are more likely to gain both factual and perceived science knowledge than White Americans with increased social media use. Furthermore, social media use was linked to wider education-based gaps in factual knowledge and narrower education-based gaps in perceived knowledge among racial minorities than among Whites. Theoretical and practical implications for equitable science communication are discussed.

Spreading issue awareness about increasingly interdisciplinary scientific discoveries faces progressively larger communication challenges due to the complexity, innovation pace, and broad applicability of these innovations. Traditionally, the public relies on legacy media for information and discussion of science topics. In face of a changing information landscape, however, legacy media struggle with decreasing funding for their science desks, and science journalists turn to more specialized outlets, often online. Given these developments, it is important to understand which platforms besides legacy media serve as facilitators of science issue awareness. In this study, we analyzed the impact of social media on the awareness of gene editing. We used a representative survey administered by professional survey firm YouGov between December 2016 and January 2017, yielding a final sample of 1,600 US adults with a 41.7% response rate. The regression analysis findings suggest that social media is a significant avenue through which awareness of gene editing, and subsequently other scientific issues, is spread. Using the example of Facebook, we were able to demonstrate that how, rather than if, one uses social media is the determining factor in spreading issue awareness. Awareness was positively predicted by the length of social media sessions and network heterogeneity, while pure amount of sessions actually negatively predicted awareness. Legacy media remain an important predictor of gene editing awareness. These results demonstrate that social media functions as an important information space for science issues and should receive individual attention along with legacy media outlets when examining science communication.

Experts have called for public engagement with the governance of controversial scientific research and discoveries, including CRISPR, the technology that enables gene editing. Though engaging and informing citizens who are not interested in the issue is a challenge, recent studies suggest humor has potential to close interest and knowledge gaps. We tested this potential by exposing individuals ( N = 303) to one of three videos (an edited clip from Last Week Tonight , an edited clip from 60 Minutes , or control) that contained broadly overlapping facts about gene editing in an online survey. Results show that while exposure to the Last Week Tonight clip did not increase attentiveness to the issue of human gene editing among individuals with lower levels of interest in science, exposure to the humorous clip caused a modest improvement in issue knowledge. Positive main effects on perceived knowledge were found for both treatments. More research is needed but findings suggest that the use of humor in science communication offers potential, though perhaps limited, for broadening public engagement with emerging areas of science.

We use an experiment with a nationally representative sample of the U.S. population to examine how political partisans consume and process media reports about nanotechnology—a scientific issue that is unfamiliar to most Americans. We manipulate the extent to which participants receive ideological cues contextualizing a news article, and follow their subsequent information seeking about nanotechnology. Our results provide insights into patterns of media use and how media use differs among people with varying political ideologies. When cues clarifying the political stakes of nanotechnology are made available, individuals are willing to read information from countervailing sources. When such cues are lacking, however, individuals avoid incongruent information and opt for headlines from attitude-consistent sources. We explore variations in the circumstances under which ideological selectivity occurs and demonstrate that both confirmation bias and defensive avoidance are heightened under such conditions.

Due to changes in the media landscape, the vast majority of the public now depends on a mix of media formats for science news. This study analyzes audiences’ repertoires of science media consumption, and the effect of these consumption patterns on public understanding of science. We also profile those who rely on a mix of online-only sources and traditional media for science news. Our findings indicate that primarily relying on online-only sources is positively associated with a higher understanding of science, even when pertaining to respondents’ level of education and scientific training in the past.

The synthetic biology research community will influence the future development of synthetic biology and its emergence into the sociopolitical and regulatory arenas. Because of this influence, we provide a first look at those involved in the research field—their views regarding the field and interactions with the public—using a unique sample of United States–based researchers who have published in the broad field of synthetic biology. Our data indicate a range of views of the moral and regulatory aspects of the science, based in part on various values and professional judgments, with differences emerging across synthetic biologists (e.g., bench scientists and computer scientists) and researchers focusing on ethical, legal, and social implications (ELSI). Importantly, the researchers are engaged in public outreach activities, which could provide opportunities for public discourse on the sociopolitical aspects of synthetic biology. The implications of these findings for the future of the technology and upstream engagement emerge.