Relationship between scientists and public
- 1. Relationship between scientists and public in the communication process Dr Umut Yildiz
- 2. • Do you think when you have scientific knowledge you have power? • What happens when science becomes the subject of public controversy? Scientists are mostly well-respected, e.g., Einstein
- 3. Common Beliefs Molecular model of rhinovirus, the virus that causes common cold and rhinitis, 3D illustration. Image Credit: Kateryna Kon / Shutterstock Being cold or damp makes you sick In reality, colds are caused by viruses, not by temperature or wet hair. While being chilly might make you feel uncomfortable, it doesn’t directly lead to catching a cold unless you’re exposed to the virus. https://newsnetwork.mayoclinic.org/discussion/mayo-clinic-q-and-a-myths-about-catching-a-cold/
- 4. Common Beliefs Sitting too close strained or damaged your eyesight permanently As it turns out, sitting close to the TV has no effect on your vision at all. That distance at which you sit from the television screen does not damage your eyes in any way. It turns out that sitting close to the TV can actually be a good sign to parents that their kids might be nearsighted. If a kid has trouble seeing the TV he will sit closer to see it more clearly. https://sites.psu.edu/siowfa15/2015/09/15/does-sitting-too-close-to-the-tv-actually-hurt-your-vision/
- 5. Common Beliefs If you crack your knuckles, you’ll get arthritis later in life The sound of cracking knuckles comes from gas bubbles collapsing in the synovial fluid within the joint, not from anything damaging the bones or cartilage. Studies have shown no link between knuckle-cracking and arthritis. California physician who reported on an experiment he conducted on himself. Over his lifetime, he regularly cracked the knuckles of only one hand. He checked x-rays on himself after decades of this behavior and found no difference in arthritis between his hands. https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/knuckle-cracking-annoying-and-harmful-or-just-annoying-2018051413797
- 6. Common Beliefs Often trust and personal connection are more important than authority or expertise. Even when there is a connection and trust among people, worldviews, ideologies, religion and reference groups greatly determine how we'll relate to new scientific knowledge we meet. People who teach science in schools usually assume that someone who studies more science will understand science better and therefore will agree with what scientists say. In science communication we know a lot of cases where people use scientific terms and ideas they learned to support ideas that contradict what nearly all scientists think. Therefore it's important for us to understand not just what people know about science, but how they use their scientific knowledge to determine who to believe. This is important when there is scientific consensus, and just as important when the experts themselves can't agree among themselves and the public needs to decide for themselves.
- 7. Science Communication Models The Deficit Model This model assumes that if the public is given enough scientific information, they will understand and support science, leading to better decisions and appreciation of technology. However, research shows this approach doesn’t effectively change attitudes or behaviors—simply providing facts isn’t enough to bridge the gap between science and the public. The Contextual Model This model improves on the deficit approach by considering the context in which information is shared, such as timing (e.g., vaccine info during COVID-19 news cycles), accessibility, and public trust in scientists. While it’s more effective at spreading knowledge, it still doesn’t tackle the deeper reasons for disconnects between science and various public groups. The Dialogic Model This model addresses some root causes of science-society gaps by promoting two-way communication. It recognizes that people’s views on science (e.g., vaccine decisions) involve more than just trust in facts— they include economic, logistical, or personal factors. The scientific community must engage in open dialogue with diverse publics, understanding their needs and concerns to build trust, which is the model’s core goal. The Participation Model This newer model involves the public directly in science through citizen science (where people contribute to or start research) and policymaking (e.g., influencing animal testing rules or funding). It emphasizes active public involvement rather than just receiving information, fostering collaboration between science and society. Interrelationships Between Models Researchers suggest these models can overlap or work together depending on the situation—one group might need dialogue, another participation. They’re not fixed categories but part of a flexible continuum,
- 8. Science Communication Models Changing from a deficit model to a dialogue model. • The deficit model focuses on increasing knowledge on a subject only by disseminating more facts to the public. • The dialogue model gives the public an active role in science communication and allows scientists to take into account value systems when discussing science with different audiences. Courchamp et al., 2016
- 9. The “problem” and the “blame” Models are “frameworks for understanding what the ‘problem’ is, how to measure the problem, and how to address the problem”; In some cases, both scientists and public are blamed for not engaging with each other and others to try and more deliberately solve important societal issues. In other words, instead of the models being helpful for explaining and informing science communication practice they can be used to criticize the efforts of practitioners. the ‘problem’ being • the public understanding of and relationship with science. • scientists’ lack of understanding or relationship with public. Regardless, both these conceptions generate ‘blame’ models. • public may be being blamed for not understanding and appreciating science • scientists may be blamed for not understanding public, trying to have positive relationships with public or attempting to engage with them. .
- 10. Which are the most important science communication objective to you? • Education: Enhance the public’s understanding of science to be able to make informed decisions • Defense: Contradict science misinformation, disinformation, and fake news • Popularization: Inform the public about science and distribute scientific content • Popularization: Make scientific content accessible • Promotion: Excite the public about science and increase appreciation for science • Promotion: Gain the public’s support and government funding for science • Contextualization: Tailor messages to specific audiences and build trust • Engagement: Diverse publics discuss science issues • Consultation: Stimulate the public to be involved in public science discourse, express concerns and raise questions that stem from science and its applications, gain lay knowledge • Deliberation: Foster the public to help set the agenda for science by actively deliberate in public debates on the “why” and “why not” of science, as part of democratic policymaking • Critique: Acknowledge the public critique on the science research enterprise priority list, and strive to maximize possible societal returns from investments in science for the larger social good • Collaboration: Encourage co-creation of knowledge, and enable the public to participate in research endeavors
- 11. De-jargonization In science communication, breaking down jargon while still communicating the importance of research is incredibly difficult. For most scientists, jargon is a part of their everyday language and they forget that the public does not understand certain terms. For a lay person, hearing and not understanding scientific jargon is frustrating, and often leads to confusion on a subject. Training for scientists in how to use language carefully, and how to understand and relate to values of any audience will accelerate our ability to create a dialogue with the general public. https://scienceandpublic.com/de-jargonizer https://xkcd.com/simplewriter/ Gretchen Kroh, 2019
- 12. The ozone layer hole is shrinking NASA's Aura satellite observations confirm that the ozone hole is shrinking • The first studies on the harmful effects of CFC gases on the ozone layer were conducted in 1973 by two chemists, Frank Sherwood Rowland and Mario Molina. However, since CFC gases were a major part of a vast industry, convincing people about their dangers was not easy. • In the 1980s, concerns over the ozone hole dominated news due to its link to increased UV radiation, which causes skin cancer and other health issues. • Ozone is a protective gas in the upper atmosphere that absorbs harmful UV radiation. However, CFC (chlorofluorocarbon) gases used in industries broke down ozone molecules, leading to ozone depletion. • Ultraviolet (UV) radiation from the Sun breaks down the CFC compound, releasing chlorine atoms, which then interact with ozone molecules, breaking them apart and depleting the ozone layer. • The ozone hole over Antarctica was discovered in 1985, with NASA satellite data confirming its extent.
- 13. The ozone layer hole is shrinking • The Montreal Protocol was signed in 1987 and came into force in 1989, banning CFC production. Over time, CFCs were replaced with safer alternatives like HFCs. • NASA's recent data shows a 20% recovery of the ozone layer since 2005, with declining chlorine levels proving the effectiveness of the CFC ban. • The ozone hole still exists but is expected to fully close between 2060 and 2080 if progress continues. • The Montreal Protocol is seen as a successful global environmental agreement, unlike the Kyoto Protocol for climate change, highlighting the importance of public awareness and governmental action.
- 15. Controversy Socio-scientific issues are open-ended problems with no single solution; often several potential solutions may apply. Scientific principles, theories and data help formulate ways of addressing such issues, but they are not enough – partly because of the additional aspects, such as social, political, economic and ethical issues, on which scientific knowledge has little bearing if any Controversy is an integral part of the social and political context of science, and is important to scientific progress; avoiding it would be nearly impossible, as well as counterproductive. Paris Agreement for Global Warming: USA, China oppose while most others agree, e.g., communities and countries that are exposed to the dangers of climate change, such as those living in areas prone to desertification, have a specific interest in curbing carbon emissions that cause global warming, while some stakeholders, such as the fossil fuel industry (coal, petroleum, natural gas), would be handicapped by such measures.
- 16. In an effort to uphold professional journalistic standards, reporters sometimes present the climate change issue to the public showing both the findings of the scientists, who attribute it to human activity, and the claims of those who doubt them. Is this a problem? A) No, because journalists should always present all aspects of an issue. B) Yes, because presenting multiple perspectives on climate change is tedious and the public may become bored with the subject. C) Yes, because it creates the false impression that there is significant controversy in the scientific community about climate change. D) Yes, because it overemphasizes a single topic, such as climate change, drawing attention away from other issues on the public agenda.
- 17. Paradox of Choice Faced with a wide choice, we feel frustrated and unsatisfied. Our tendency in this situation is • to not to choose at all, or • to choose according to prior beliefs or ideas. When overwhelmed with information, we find it much harder to select the relevant facts and make informed decisions.
- 18. Bounded Rationality When faced with uncertainty in decision-making we like to believe our choices are purely rational. However, this is often not the case. One of the key theories in judgment and decision-making is bounded rationality (Herbert A. Simon, 1957). Ideal conditions for making optimal decisions are rarely available—due to environmental constraints, time or cost limitations, or cognitive biases—we rely on mental shortcuts known as heuristics. The benefit of this approach is efficiency—it allows for quick decisions that are often satisfactory. Let’s choose to buy a cellphone, we may compare the situation to past experiences: Have we purchased this brand before? Did I like it? Did I love it? Was it reliable? Another heuristic involves the authority of the person making the recommendation: Do they have expertise in technology?
- 19. Inoculation Theory Inoculation theory is a social psychological communication theory that explains how an attitude or belief can be protected against persuasion or influence in much the same way a body can be protected against disease…
- 20. According to inoculation theory, if people are told ahead of time that they might hear certain false information, this A) confuses them, and is best avoided B) makes them less likely to believe the false claim and to spread it further C) strengthens their belief in the false claim D) leads them to doubt the person who forewarned them correct Inoculation Theory
- 22. Misinformation Misinformation can do damage Misinformation, whether accidental or intentional (disinformation), can cause significant harm. It's crucial to protect people by making them resilient to misinformation or by debunking it after exposure. Misinformation can be sticky! Fact-checking can reduce belief in false information, but misinformation often continues to influence people even after correction—this is the "continued influence effect." Effective debunking is crucial to minimize its impact. Prevent misinformation from sticking if you can Misinformation is best prevented through inoculation, explaining manipulative strategies to make people resistant to future misinformation. This method works best before exposure. Debunk often and properly If preemptive measures fail, debunking is necessary. For effective debunking, provide detailed explanations of why the information is false and what is true to help "unstick" the misinformation.
- 23. Debunking Misinformation https://inoculation.science/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/DebunkingHandbook2020.pdf Successful communication rests on the communicator’s credibility.
- 24. State the truth first • If it’s easy to do in a few clear words, state what is true first. This allows you to frame the message—you lead with your talking points, not someone else’s. • The best corrections are as prominent (in the headlines, not buried in questions) as the misinformation. • Do not rely on a simple retraction (“this claim is not true”). • Providing a factual alternative, that is an alternative that fills a causal “gap” in explaining what happened if the misinformation is corrected, is an effective method of debunking. MYTH: Point to misinformation • Repeat the misinformation, only once, directly prior to the correction. One repetition of the myth is beneficial to belief updating. • Needless repetitions of the misinformation should be avoided: We know that repetition makes information appear true. • Corrections are most successful if people are suspicious, or made to be suspicious, of the source or intent of the misinformation FALLACY: Explain why misinformation is wrong Rather than only stating that the misinformation is false, it is beneficial to provide details as to why. Explain (1) why the mistaken information was thought to be correct in the first place (2) why it is now clear it is wrong (3) why the alternative is correct. It is important for people to see the inconsistency in order to resolve it. FACT: State the truth again Restate the fact again, so the fact is the last thing people process. Even with detailed refutations, the effects will wear off over time 3, 52, so be prepared to debunk repeatedly!
- 26. Familiarity backfire effect Repetition makes information more familiar, and familiar information is generally perceived to be more truthful than novel information. Because a myth is necessarily repeated when it is debunked, the risk arises that debunking may backfire by making a myth more familiar. Early evidence was supportive of this idea, but more recently, exhaustive experimental attempts to induce a backfire effect through familiarity alone have come up empty. Thus, while repeating misinformation generally increases familiarity and truth ratings, repeating a myth while refuting it has been found to be safe in many circumstances, and can even make the correction more salient and effective.
- 27. Wardle & Derakhshan 2018 propose a system whereby misinformation and disinformation can be divided into seven categories, depending on the intent of the disseminator and on the recipients’ interpretation: 1. Satire or parody, which may be misconstrued as truth; 2. False connection: visuals and headlines that create an impression not supported by the content (for example, a clickbait headline reading The Secret Trick to Weight Loss, whereas the article contains no secret); 3. Misleading content: texts or visuals framed in such a way as to misrepresent their original meaning (such as a distorted graph or a quote that is missing a crucial part); 4. False context: genuine content taken out of its original context (such as a photograph of a past event with a caption identifying it as a more recent one); 5. Imposter content: information with false credentials (such as a fictitious statement carrying the signature or logo of an official agency); 6. Manipulated content: genuine content deliberately altered (such as a video slowed down to create the impression that the speaker is inebriated); 7. Fabricated content (text or images that are purely fictitious). Misinformation and Disinformation
- 28. Satire or parody Manipulated Content Fabricated Content
- 29. Biggest lie of our time and still goes on...
- 30. 1 light year – 9.5 trillion km Stellar Distances A side view of Orion (which we can only imagine seeing) would show that some of the stars are very far apart from each other, and not really grouped at all. This depiction shows that some stars are a hundred light years apart.
- 31. https://physics.weber.edu/palen/clearinghouse/labs/Planisphere/sign.html Actual Zodiac Durations Zodiac: an area of the sky through which the sun, moon, and most of the planets appear to move
- 32. Planets Retrograde Mercury isn't the only planet that retrogrades. Every planetary 'step back’ When a planet appears to move backward in the sky, it's in "retrograde." This isn't because the planet is really moving backward—it’s an optical illusion. Imagine you're in a car passing another car on the highway. For a moment, it might seem like the other car is moving backward relative to you, even though both cars are moving forward. That’s similar to what happens with retrograde motion.
- 33. In our study, we argue that the time, effort, and profit losses incurred by organizations through thes personality assessments are ultimately wasted. Instead, organizations could save money and achieve better results by providing astrology knowledge or training to their HR departments. By doing so, organizations would not only be able to select the most suitable candidates during recruitment but also place existing staff in positions that align with their personalities, thereby increasing productivity. Companies that aim to foster organizational commitment can easily achieve this by hiring people from water and earth signs during recruitment, as Cancer, Pisces, Scorpio, Taurus, Capricorn, and Virgo employees will remain loyal and responsible in their roles for many years. This study examines whether the concepts of personality and organizational commitment are related to astrological personality traits. The survey results led to the following conclusions: • There is a relationship between zodiac signs and personality traits. • Employees from the water signs (Cancer, Scorpio, Pisces) primarily exhibit emotional commitment. • Employees from the earth signs (Taurus, Virgo, Capricorn) show higher continuity commitment. • Employees from the air signs (Gemini, Libra, Aquarius) do not demonstrate organizational commitment. • Employees from the fire signs (Aries, Leo, Sagittarius) have higher continuity commitment.
- 34. • Why astrology today has a high follower count and believers as stone cold?
- 35. Science denial in high places Powerful individuals and organizations have various reasons for rejecting scientific evidence. In the 17th century, physicist Galileo Galilei publicly advocated for the Copernican astronomical models but faced strong ideological opposition from the Catholic Church, which labeled his theories as heretical. When the Church put Galileo on trial, it primarily defended its actions by asserting that its interpretation of the scriptures was the sole truth. In contrast, modern science deniers often use scientific or pseudo-scientific evidence to back their claims, making it challenging for the public to identify the flaws in their arguments.
- 36. https://www.nasa.gov/technology/nasa-finds-drought-in-eastern-mediterranean-wors t-of-past-900-years Between the years 1100 and 2012, the team found droughts in the tree-ring record that corresponded to those described in historical documents written at the time. According to Cook, the range of how extreme wet or dry periods were is quite broad, but the recent drought in the Levant region, from 1998 to 2012, stands out as about 50 percent drier than the driest period in the past 500 years, and 10 to 20 percent drier than the worst drought of the past 900 years. “If we look at recent events and we start to see anomalies that are outside this range of natural variability, then we can say with some confidence that it looks like this particular event or this series of events had some kind of human caused climate change contribution,” he said. Climate Change
- 40. Assignment 1: Create 2 different shorts/reels • Explain your field/department/research • Find a topic of your choice and make a 1.5 minute reel • Image you are explaining your science to 12 year-old • Interview a scientist/academic/another student • Interview another person who will explain their research or science, etc. Conditions and rewards: • Can be in Turkish or English • You will collaborate with the @metuscicomm Instagram page • You can use graphic design, motion graphics, AI, etc. • You can show your face but not mandatory, however it must be your voice. You can voice over to a video that you make and own. • Write a good caption and #’s to receive attention. • Add your student ID, tag @metuscicomm and @metu_odtu • Top 10 best reel will be published at the official @metu_odtu Instagram page. • Every 50000 views will get you 5 points to the final grade
Editor's Notes
- #6: For example regarding climate change, evolution or vaccination. The assumption is that if people don't agree with what scientists say, then they were probably not taught well enough.