Explore the vast range of titles available.

Across two studies with more than 1,700 U.S. adults recruited online, we present evidence that people share false claims about COVID-19 partly because they simply fail to think sufficiently about whether or not the content is accurate when deciding what to share. In Study 1, participants were far worse at discerning between true and false content when deciding what they would share on social media relative to when they were asked directly about accuracy. Furthermore, greater cognitive reflection and science knowledge were associated with stronger discernment. In Study 2, we found that a simple accuracy reminder at the beginning of the study (i.e., judging the accuracy of a non-COVID-19-related headline) nearly tripled the level of truth discernment in participants’ subsequent sharing intentions. Our results, which mirror those found previously for political fake news, suggest that nudging people to think about accuracy is a simple way to improve choices about what to share on social media.

Citizen science is a growing phenomenon. With millions of people involved and billions of in-kind dollars contributed annually, this broad extent, fine grain approach to data collection should be garnering enthusiastic support in the mainstream science and higher education communities. However, many academic researchers demonstrate distinct biases against the use of citizen science as a source of rigorous information. To engage the public in scientific research, and the research community in the practice of citizen science, a mutual understanding is needed of accepted quality standards in science, and the corresponding specifics of project design and implementation when working with a broad public base. We define a science-based typology focused on the degree to which projects deliver the type(s) and quality of data/work needed to produce valid scientific outcomes directly useful in science and natural resource management. Where project intent includes direct contribution to science and the public is actively involved either virtually or handson, we examine the measures of quality assurance (methods to increase data quality during the design and implementation phases of a project) and quality control (post hoc methods to increase the quality of scientific outcomes). We suggest that high quality science can be produced with massive, largely one–off, participation if data collection is simple and quality control includes algorithm voting, statistical pruning, and/or computational modeling. Small to mid-scale projects engaging participants in repeated, often complex, sampling can advance quality through expert-led training and well-designed materials, and through independent verification. Both approaches—simplification at scale and complexity with care—generate more robust science outcomes.

We propose a thoughtful process for scientists to develop their “impact identity”, a concept that integrates scholarship in a scientific discipline with societal needs, personal preferences, capacities and skills, and one’s institutional context. Approaching broader impacts from a place of integrated identity can support cascading impacts that develop over the course of a career. We argue identity is a productive driver that can improve outcomes for scientists and for society. Widespread adoption of the concept of impact identity may also have implications for the recruitment and retention of a more diverse range of scientist.

Background: Public eye care services in South Africa are relatively underdeveloped. This is, in part, due to optometry services historically being private sector-focussed, as well as a lack of ophthalmologists in the country. Optometry students who engage in service learning at public health facilities are well placed to share their perceptions of this service.Aim: To investigate the perceptions and experiences of optometry students regarding public eye care services in South Africa.Setting: Data were collected on the Phelophepa Health Care Train while it was stationed at Musina and Polokwane in 2019.Methods: A qualitative study was conducted using focus group interviews to collect data from South African optometry students. Two focus group sessions were held, with a total sample of 18 representing two different higher education institutions. Interview recordings were transcribed, and data were thematically analysed using interpretive content analysis.Results: Three main themes emerged, namely ‘inability to deliver quality services’, ‘negative perceptions about public eye care services’ and ‘potential to improve public eye care services’. Strengthening infrastructure and human resource capacity were seen as fundamental steps to improving public eye care services in South Africa.Conclusion: Strengthening public eye care services in South Africa is necessary in order to improve the experience-based perceptions of optometry students towards this sector. Addressing eye health system weaknesses through appropriate resourcing will likely contribute to attracting this potential future human resource to the sector, and assist in alleviating the shortage of human resources for eye health within South Africa’s public health service.Contribution: Optometry education and professional practice in South Africa is increasingly adopting a more public health approach. This shift towards strengthening public eye care services and improving human resources capacity for the same is both important and necessary to address unmet eye health needs in the country. However, current gaps and challenges within the public health system may deter new graduates in South Africa from choosing this practice path if the overall challenges of resourcing and capacity to deliver quality services are not addressed.  

BACKGROUND: Public eye care services in South Africa are relatively underdeveloped. This is, in part, due to optometry services historically being private sector-focussed, as well as a lack of ophthalmologists in the country. Optometry students who engage in service learning at public health facilities are well placed to share their perceptions of this service. AIM: To investigate the perceptions and experiences of optometry students regarding public eye care services in South Africa. SETTING: Data were collected on the Phelophepa Health Care Train while it was stationed at Musina and Polokwane in 2019. METHODS: A qualitative study was conducted using focus group interviews to collect data from South African optometry students. Two focus group sessions were held, with a total sample of 18 representing two different higher education institutions. Interview recordings were transcribed, and data were thematically analysed using interpretive content analysis. RESULTS: Three main themes emerged, namely 'inability to deliver quality services', 'negative perceptions about public eye care services' and 'potential to improve public eye care services'. Strengthening infrastructure and human resource capacity were seen as fundamental steps to improving public eye care services in South Africa. CONCLUSION: Strengthening public eye care services in South Africa is necessary in order to improve the experience-based perceptions of optometry students towards this sector. Addressing eye health system weaknesses through appropriate resourcing will likely contribute to attracting this potential future human resource to the sector, and assist in alleviating the shortage of human resources for eye health within South Africa's public health service CONTRIBUTION: Optometry education and professional practice in South Africa is increasingly adopting a more public health approach. This shift towards strengthening public eye care services and improving human resources capacity for the same is both important and necessary to address unmet eye health needs in the country. However, current gaps and challenges within the public health system may deter new graduates in South Africa from choosing this practice path if the overall challenges of resourcing and capacity to deliver quality services are not addressed.

With stories of struggle and dramatic breakthroughs, science has incredible potential to interest the public. However, as the rhetoric of outrage surrounds controversies over science policy there is an urgent need for credible, trusted voices that frame science issues in a way that resonates with a diverse public. A network of informal educators, park rangers, museum docents and designers, and zoo and aquarium interpreters are prepared to do so during millions of visits a year; just where science stories are most meaningfully told—in the places where members of the public are open to learning. Scientific researchers can benefit from partnerships with these intermediaries who are accorded status for their trustworthiness and good will, who have expertise in translating the science using language, metaphors, encounters, and experiences that are appropriate for non-experts. In this volume, we describe and probe examples wherein scientists work productively with informal educators and designers, artists, staff of federal agencies, citizen scientists, and volunteers who bring science into the public eye.

Human-induced global change has triggered the sixth major extinction event on earth with profound consequences for humans and other species. A scientifically literate public is necessary to find and implement approaches to prevent or slow species loss. Creating science-inspired art can increase public understanding of the current anthropogenic biodiversity crisis and help people connect emotionally to difficult concepts. In spite of the pressure to avoid advocacy and emotion, there is a rich history of scientists who make art, as well as art–science collaborations resulting in provocative work that engages public interest; however, such interdisciplinary partnerships can often be challenging to initiate and navigate. Here we explore the goals, impacts, cascading impacts, and lessons learned from art–science collaborations, as well as ideas for collaborative projects. Using three case studies based on Harrower’s scientific research into species interactions, we illustrate the importance of artists as a primary audience and the potential for a combination of art and science presentations to influence public understanding and concern related to species loss.

Science museums have made a concerted effort to work with researchers to incorporate current scientific findings and practices into informal learning opportunities for museum visitors. Many of these efforts have focused on creating opportunities and support for researchers to interact face-to-face with the public through, for example, speaker series, community forums, and engineering competitions. However, there are other means by which practicing scientists can find a voice on the museum floor—through the design and development of exhibits. Here we describe how researchers and museum professionals have worked together to create innovative exhibit experiences for an interactive science museum. For each example: scientist as (1) data providers, (2) advisors, and (3) co-developers, we highlight essential components for a successful partnership and pitfalls to avoid when collaborating on museum exhibits. Not many museums prototype and build their own exhibits like the Exploratorium. In those cases, there may be similar opportunities in more mediated offerings such as public demonstrations or lectures or in other formats that allow for direct interactions between scientists and visitors. We believe there are many opportunities for researchers to share natural phenomena, to advise on exhibit development and interpretation, to provide much needed materials, and to otherwise incorporate authentic research into the learning experiences at museums, no matter what the format.

Most researchers are keenly interested in disseminating their work beyond traditional publication routes. With an eye to increasing broader impacts, scientists can benefit from partnerships with informal educators who interact daily with the public and see their role as translating science to increase the public’s intellectual and emotional connections with the natural world. Typically, researchers give a one-time lunch hour talk, generally a modified version of a presentation aimed at scientific peers. Talks during which scientists show slides and interpreters mainly listen are a missed opportunity. They leave the scientist no wiser about the public’s interests and the nagging questions interpreters have. Such talks leave the conscientious park educator with insufficient resources for overcoming challenges in interpreting the science for the public. The Interpreters and Scientists Working on Our Parks (iSWOOP) project proposes a model of professional development (PD) that involves a deliberate partnership where scientists and educators work together. During site-based PD sessions, they tease out the relevance to public audiences and begin to develop programs about the science. This article describes iSWOOP’s approach to supporting productive collaborations that promote an understanding of scientific research to public audiences. Results from a pair of surveys indicate that both sides of this partnership benefit from extended contact and clear communication.

The USA has set aside over 400 national parks and other protected areas to be managed by the National Park Service (NPS). Collectively, these sites attract over 300 million visits per year which makes the NPS one of the largest informal education institutions in the country. Because the NPS supports and facilitates scientific studies in parks, the national park system provides abundant opportunity for biologists and other scientists to engage global audiences in learning, exploring, and even conducting science. Those opportunities are best pursued through collaborations among scientists and the professional communication staff (interpreters, educators, media specialists, etc.) of parks and their partner organizations. This article describes unique opportunities and rationale for such collaborations, presents several examples that highlight the range of activities and lessons drawn from them, and invites scientists to conduct studies in parks and bring their science into the public eye.