How scientists view the public, the media and the political process

Public Understanding of Science

Volumn 22, Issue 6, 2013, Pages 644-659

  Besley, John C ^a   Nisbet, Matthew ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA   (United States)

^b AMERICAN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

deficit model; media; public participation; scientists' attitudes

Indexed keywords

EID: 84880715483     PISSN: 09636625     EISSN: 13616609     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0963662511418743     Document Type: Review

References (41)

1. Barke RP,Jenkins-Smith HC.Politics and scientific expertise: Scientists, risk perception and nuclear waste policy.Risk Analysis. 1993;13 (4): 425-439.
2. Bauer MW,Allum N,Miller S.What can we learn from 25 years of PUS survey research? Liberating and expanding the agenda.Public Understanding of Science. 2007;16 (1): 79-95.
3. Besley JC,Kramer V,Priest SH.Expert opinion on nanotechnology: Risk, benefits, and regulation.Journal of Nanoparticle Research. 2008a;10 (4): 549-558.
4. Besley JC,Kramer VL,Yao Q,Toumey CP.Interpersonal discussion following citizen engagement on emerging technology.Science Communication. 2008b;30 (4): 209-235.
5. Besley JC,Roberts MC.Qualitative interviews with journalists about deliberative public engagement.Journalism Practice. 2010;4 (1): 66-81.
6. Blok A,Jensen M,Kaltoft P.Social identities and risk: Expert and lay imaginations on pesticide use.Public Understanding of Science. 2008;17 (2): 189-209.
7. Burchell K.Empiricist selves and contingent "others": The performative function of the discourse of scientists working in conditions of controversy.Public Understanding of Science. 2007;16 (2): 145-162.
8. Burningham K,Barnett J,Carr A,Clift R,Wehrmeyer W.Industrial constructions of publics and public knowledge: A qualitative investigation of practice in the UK chemicals industry.Public Understanding of Science. 2007;16 (1): 23-43.
9. Cook G,Pieri E,Robbins PT."The scientists think and the public feels": Expert perceptions of the discourse of GM food.Discourse and Society. 2004;15 (4): 433-449.
10. Corley EA,Scheufele DA,Hu Q.Of risks and regulations: How leading US nanoscientists form policy stances about nanotechnology.Journal of Nanoparticle Research. 2009;11 (7): 1573-1585.
11. Davies SR.Constructing communication: Talking to scientists about talking to the public.Science Communication. 2008;29 (4): 413-434.
12. Davison WP.The third-person effect in communication.Public Opinion Quarterly. 1983;47:1-15.
13. Davison WP.The third-person effect revisited.International Journal of Public Opinion Research. 1996;8 (2): 113-119.
14. De Boer M,McCarthy M,Brennan M,Kelly AL,Ritson C.Public understanding of food risk issues and food risk messages on the island of Ireland: The views of food safety experts.Journal of Food Safety. 2005;25 (4): 241-265.
15. Gamble J,Kassardjian E.The use of selected community groups to elicit and understand the values underlying attitudes towards biotechnology.Public Understanding of Science. 2008;17 (2): 245-259.
16. Glynn CJ,Ostman RE,McDonald DGPublic Opinion and the Communication of Consent. Glass TLSalmon CT, ed. New York, NY: The Guilford Press; 1995:249-277.
17. Hayes AF,Shanahan J,Glynn CJ.Willingness to express one's opinion in a realistic situation as a function of perceived support for that opinion.International Journal of Public Opinion Research. 2001;13 (1): 45-58.
18. Jenkins-Smith HC,Silva CL,Murray C.Beliefs about radiation: Scientists, the public and public policy.Health Physics. 2009;97 (5): 519-527.
19. Krystallis A,Frewer L,Rowe G,Houghton J,Kehagia O,Perrea T.A perceptual divide? Consumer and expert attitudes to food risk management in Europe.Health Risk and Society. 2007;9 (4): 407-424.
20. Kurath M,Gisler P.Informing, involving or engaging? Science communication, in the ages of atom-, bio- and nanotechnology.Public Understanding of Science. 2009;18 (5): 559-573.
21. Levy-Leblond J-M.About misunderstandings about misunderstandings.Public Understanding of Science. 1992;1 (1): 17-21.
22. Michael M,Birke L.Enrolling the core set: The case of the animal experimentation controversy.Social Studies of Science. 1994;24 (1): 81-95.
23. Michael M,Brown N.From the representation of publics to the performance of "lay political science".Social Epistemology. 2000;14 (1): 3-19.
24. Michie S,Drake H,Marteau T,Bobrow M.A comparison of public and professionals' attitudes towards genetic developments.Public Understanding of Science. 1995;4 (3): 243-253.
25. Moore A,Stilgoe J.Experts and anecdotes: The role of "anecdotal evidence" in public scientific controversies.Science, Technology and Human Values. 2009;34 (5): 654-677.
26. MORI/Wellcome Trust (2001) The role of scientists in public debate. Available at: http://www.wellcome.ac.uk/About-us/Publications/Reports/Public-engagement/WTD003429.htm.
27. Nisbet MC,Mooney C.Science and society: Framing science.Science. 2007;316 (5821): 56.
28. Nisbet MC,Scheufele DA.What's next for science communication? Promising directions and lingering distractions.American Journal of Botany. 2009;96 (10): 1767-1778.
29. Pearson G,Pringle SM,Thomas JN.Scientists and the public understanding of science.Public Understanding of Science. 1997;6 (3): 279-289.
30. Peters HP,Brossard D,de Cheveigne S,Dunwoody S,Kallfass M,Miller S,Tsuchida S.Science-media interface: It's time to reconsider.Science Communication. 2008a;30 (2): 266-276.
31. Peters HP,Brossard D,de Cheveigne S,Dunwoody S,Kallfass M,Miller S,Tsuchida S.Science communication: Interactions with the mass media.Science. 2008b;321 (5886): 204-205.
32. Petersen A,Anderson A,Allan S,Wilkinson C.Opening the black box: Scientists' views on the role of the news media in the nanotechnology debate.Public Understanding of Science. 2009;18 (5): 512-530.
33. Pew Research Center for the People and the Press (2009) Public praises science; scientists fault public, media. July9. Available at: http://people-press.org/reports/pdf/528.pdf.
34. Poliakoff E,Webb TL.What factors predict scientists' intentions to participate in public engagement of science activities?.Science Communication. 2007;29 (2): 242-263.
35. Rowe G,Frewer LJ.A typology of public engagement mechanisms.Science, Technology and Human Values. 2005;30 (2): 251-290.
36. Royal Society (2006) Factors Affecting Science Communication: A Survey of Scientists and Engineers. Available at: http://royalsociety.org/page.asp?id=3180.
37. Scheufele DA,Corley EA,Dunwoody S,Shih TJ,Hillback E,Guston DH.Scientists worry about some risks more than the public.Nature Nanotechnology. 2007;2 (12): 732-734.
38. Slovic P.Trust, emotion, sex, politics, and science: Surveying the risk-assessment battlefield.Risk Analysis. 1999;19 (4): 689-701.
39. Stilgoe J.The (co-)production of public uncertainty: UK scientific advice on mobile phone health risks.Public Understanding of Science. 2007;16 (1): 45-61.
40. Sturgis P,Allum N.Science in society: Re-evaluating the deficit model of public attitudes.Public Understanding of Science. 2004;13:55-74.
41. Young N,Matthews R.Experts' understanding of the public: Knowledge control in a risk controversy.Public Understanding of Science. 2007;16 (2): 123-144.