Science communication scholarship: Themes and future directions

Handbook on Communicating and Disseminating Behavioral Science

Volumn , Issue , 2007, Pages 33-56

  Weigold, Michael ^a   Treise, Debbie ^a   Rausch, Paula ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA   (United States)

^b NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84951001253     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.4135/9781412976930.n3     Document Type: Chapter

References (113)

1. Allspaw K. M. Engaging the public in the regulation of xenotransplantation: Would the Canadian model of public consultation be effective in the US? [Electronicversion] Public Understanding of Science 13 2004 417-428doi:10.1177/0963662504044559 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0963662504044559
2. Apsell, P. (2002). Keynote address: Sex, lies, and science television. [Electronic version]. Retrieved from http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/bestpractices/Apsell.htm
3. Arens, W. F., Weigold, M. F., & Arens, C. (2008). Contemporary advertising. Burr Ridge, IL: McGraw-Hill/Irwin.
4. Bates B. R. Public culture and public understanding of genetics: A focus group study [Electronic version] Public Understanding of Science 14 2005 47-65doi:10.1177/0963662505048409 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0963662505048409
5. Bauer M. W. Controversial medical and agri-food biotechnology: Acultivation analysis [Electronic version] Public Understanding of Science 11 2002 93-111doi:10.1088/0963-6625/11/2/301 http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0963-6625/11/2/301
6. Besley J. C. Shanahan J. Media Attention and Exposure in Relation to Support for Agricultural Biotechnology [Electronic version] Science Communication 26 2005 347-367doi:10.1177/1075547005275443 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1075547005275443
7. Borchelt R. E. Communicating the future: Report of the Research Roadmap Panel for Public Communication of Science and Technology in the Twenty-First Century Science Communication 23 2001 194-211doi:10.1177/1075547001023002006 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1075547001023002006
8. Bord R. J. O’Connor R. E. Fischer A. In what sense does the public need to understand global climate change? [Electronic version] Public Understanding of Science 9 2000 205-218doi:10.1088/0963-6625/9/3/301 http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0963-6625/9/3/301
9. Borun M. Families are learning in science museums Curator, 39 1996 123-138doi:10.1111/j.2151-6952.1996.tb01084.x http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.2151-6952.1996.tb01084.x
10. Breakwell G. M. Robertson T. The gender gap in science attitudes, parental and peer influences: Changes between 1987-88 and 1997-98 [Electronic version] Public Understanding of Science 10 2001 71-82doi:10.1088/0963-6625/10/1/305 http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0963-6625/10/1/305
11. Brown J. Chapman S. Lupton D. Infinitesimal risk as public health crisis: News media coverage of a doctor-patient HIV contact tracing investigation Social Science and Medicine 43 1996 1685-1695doi:10.1016/0277-9536(95)00402-5 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0277-9536%2895%2900402-5
12. Bryson, B. (2003). A short history of nearly everything. New York: Broadway Books.
13. Burnet, F. (2002). Graphic science: New venues for science communication [Electronic version]. Retrieved from http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/bestpractices/Broadening_the_Audience_Panel.htm
14. Bush J. Moffatt S. Dunn C. E. Keeping the public informed? Public negotiation of air quality information [Electronic version] Public Understanding of Science 10 2001 213-229doi:10.1088/0963-6625/10/2/304 http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0963-6625/10/2/304
15. Byrne P. F. Namuth D. M. Harrington J. Ward S. M. Lee D. J. Hain P. Increasing public understanding of transgenic crops through the World Wide Web [Electronic version] Public Understanding of Science 11 2002 293-304doi:10.1088/0963-6625/11/3/306 http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0963-6625/11/3/306
16. Carson, R. (1962). Silent spring. London: Penguin.
17. Cassidy A. Popular evolutionary psychology in the UK: An unusual case of science in the media? [Electronic version] Public Understanding of Science 14 2005 115-141doi:10.1177/0963662505050792 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0963662505050792
18. Clarke B. Report: Farmers and scientists: A case study in facilitating communication Science Communication 25 2003 198-203doi:10.1177/1075547003259450 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1075547003259450
19. Coleman C.-L. Dysart E. V. Framing of Kennewick man against the backdrop of a scientific and cultural controversy [Electronic version] Science Communication 27 2005 3-26doi:10.1177/1075547005278609 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1075547005278609
20. Cook G. Robbins P. T. Pieri E. "Words of mass destruction": British newspaper coverage of the genetically modified food debate, expert and nonexpert reactions [Electronic version] Public Understanding of Science 15 2006 5-29doi:10.1177/0963662506058756 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0963662506058756
21. Corbett J. B. Altruism, self-interest, and the reasonable person model of environmentally responsible behavior [Electronic version] Science Communication 26 2005 368-389doi:10.1177/1075547005275425 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1075547005275425
22. Dunwoody S. Studying users of the why files [Electronic version] Science Communication 22 (3) 2001 274-282doi:10.1177/1075547001022003004 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1075547001022003004
23. Einsiedel E. F. Jelsue E. F. Breck T. Publics at the technology table: The consensus conference in Denmark, Canada, and Australia [Electronic version] Public Understanding of Science 10 2001 83-98doi:10.1088/0963-6625/10/1/306 http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0963-6625/10/1/306
24. Flicker E. Between brains and breasts-Women scientists in fiction film: On the marginalization and sexualization of scientific competence [Electronic version] Public Understanding of Science 12 2003 307-318doi:10.1177/0963662503123009 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0963662503123009
25. Freudenburg W. R. Perceived risk, real risk: Social science and the art of probabilistic risk assessment Science 7 1988 44-49doi:10.1126/science.3175635 http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.3175635
26. Freudenburg W. R. Coleman C. Gonzales J. Helgeland C. Media coverage of hazard events: Analyzing the assumptions Risk Analysis 16 1995 31-42doi:10.1111/j.1539-6924.1995.tb00762.x http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1995.tb00762.x
27. Gurke A. Ruhrmann G. Public communication between facts and fictions: On the construction of genetic risk [Electronic version] Public Understanding of Science 12 2003 229-241doi:10.1177/0963662503123002 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0963662503123002
28. Greenberg M. R. Sandman P. M. Sachsman D. B. Salomone K. L. Network television news coverage of environmental risks Environment 31 16-20 1989 40-43doi:10.1080/00139157.1989.9928931 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00139157.1989.9928931
29. Gregory, J., & Miller, S. (1998). Science in public: Communication, culture, and credibility. New York: Plenum.
30. Grunig J. E. Research on science communication: What is known and what needs to be known ACE Quarterly 62 1979 17-45
31. Grunig J. E. Communication behaviors and attitudes on environmental publics: Two studies Journalism Monographs 81 1983 1-47
32. Gurabardhi Z. Gutteling J. M. Kuttschreuter M. The development of risk communication: An empirical analysis of the literature in the field [Electronic version] Science Communication 25 (4) 2004 323-349doi:10.1177/1075547004265148 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1075547004265148
33. Hartz, J., & Chappell, R. (1997). Worlds apart: How the distance between science and journalism threatens America's future. Nashville, TN: First Amendment Center.
34. Haynes R. From alchemy to artificial intelligence: Stereotypes of the scientist in Western literature [Electronic version] Public Understanding of Science 12 2003 243-253doi:10.1177/0963662503123003 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0963662503123003
35. Heath C. vom Lehn D. Osborne J. Interaction and interactives: Collaboration and participation with computer-based exhibits [Electronic version] Public Understanding of Science 14 2005 91-101doi:10.1177/0963662505047343 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0963662505047343
36. Henriksen E. K. Fruyland M. The contribution of museums to scientific literacy: Views from audience and museum professionals [Electronic version] Public Understanding of Science 9 2000 393-415doi:10.1088/0963-6625/9/4/304 http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0963-6625/9/4/304
37. Holliman R. Media coverage of cloning: A study of media content, production and reception [Electronic version] Public Understanding of Science 13 2004 107-130doi:10.1177/0963662504043862 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0963662504043862
38. Holmes, H. (2002). Live from the field: Observing science in its natural habitat. In G. Porter (Ed.), Communicating the future: Best practices for communication of science and technology to the public. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
39. Irwin A. Constructing the scientific citizen: Science and democracy in the biosciences [Electronic version] Public Understanding of Science 10 2001 1-18doi:10.1088/0963-6625/10/1/301 http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0963-6625/10/1/301
40. Jones R. A. "Why can’t you scientists leave things alone?" Science questioned in British films of the post-war period (1945-1970) Public Understanding of Science 10 2001 365-382doi:10.1088/0963-6625/10/4/302 http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0963-6625/10/4/302
41. Jurg D. The good, the bad and the ugly-Dr. Moreau goes to Hollywood [Electronic version] Public Understanding of Science 12 2003 297-305doi:10.1177/0963662503123008 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0963662503123008
42. Kahlor L. Dunwoody S. Griffin R. J. Predicting knowledge complexity in the wake of an environmental risk Science Communication 26 (1) 2004 5-30doi:10.1177/1075547004267231 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1075547004267231
43. Kiernan V. Diffusion of news about research Science Communication 25 (1) 2003 3-13doi:10.1177/1075547003255297 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1075547003255297
44. Knudsen S. Communicating novel and conventional scientific metaphors: A study of the development of the metaphor of genetic code [Electronic version] Public Understanding of Science 14 2005 373-392doi:10.1177/0963662505056613 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0963662505056613
45. Krosnick J. A. Holbrook A. L. Visser P. S. The impact of the fall 1997 debate about global warming on American public opinion [Electronic version] Public Understanding of Science 9 2000 239-260doi:10.1088/0963-6625/9/3/303 http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0963-6625/9/3/303
46. Kua E. Reder M. Grossel M. J. Science in the news: A study of reporting genomics [Electronic version] Public Understanding of Science 13 2004 309-322doi:10.1177/0963662504045539 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0963662504045539
47. LaFollette M. C. A survey of science content in U.S. radio broadcasting, 1920s through 1940s: Scientists speak in their own voices [Electronic version] Science Communication 24 (1) 2002a 4-33doi:10.1177/107554700202400102 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/107554700202400102
48. LaFollette M. C. A survey of science content in U.S. television broadcasting, 1940s through 1950s: The exploratory years [Electronic version] Science Communication 24 (1) 2002b 34-71doi:10.1177/107554700202400103 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/107554700202400103
49. Lewenstein, B. V. (1992). Introduction. In B. V. Lewenstein (Ed.), When science meets the public. Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science.
50. Lewenstein B.V. Nisbet M. C. Biotechnology and the American media Science Communication 23 (4) 2002 359-391doi:10.1177/107554700202300401 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/107554700202300401
51. Leydesdorff L. Ward J. Science shops: A kaleidoscope of science-society collaborations in Europe Public Understanding of Science 14 2005 353-372doi:10.1177/0963662505056612 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0963662505056612
52. Liakopoulos M. Pandora's box or panacea? Using metaphors to create the public representations of biotechnology [Electronic version] Public Understanding of Science 11 2002 5-32doi:10.1088/0963-6625/11/1/301 http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0963-6625/11/1/301
53. Long M. Boiarsky G. Thayer G. Gender and racial counter-stereotypes in science education television: A content analysis [Electronic version] Public Understanding of Science 10 2001 255-269doi:10.1088/0963-6625/10/3/301 http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0963-6625/10/3/301
54. Macedo-Rouet M. Rouet J.-F. Epstein I. Fayard P. Effects of online reading on popular science comprehension [Electronic version] Science Communication 25 2003 99-128doi:10.1177/1075547003259209 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1075547003259209
55. Major A. M. Atwood L. E. Environmental risks in the news: Issues, sources, problems, and values [Electronic version] Public Understanding of Science 13 2004 295-308doi:10.1177/0963662504044557 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0963662504044557
56. Marino C. Gerlach K. K. An analysis of breast cancer coverage in selected women's magazines, 1987-1995 American Journal of Health Promotion 13 1998 163-170doi:10.4278/0890-1171-13.3.163 http://dx.doi.org/10.4278/0890-1171-13.3.163
57. Miller J. D. Scientific literacy: A conceptual and empirical review Daedalus 112 1983 29-48
58. Miller, J. D. (1986). Reaching the attentive and interested publics for science. In S. M. Friedman, S. Dunwoody & C. L. Rogers (Eds.), Scientists and journalists: Reporting science as news pp. 55-69. New York: Free Press.
59. Miller, J. D. (2000). The development of civic scientific literacy in the United States. In D. Kumar & D. Chubin (Eds.), Science, technology and society: A sourcebook on research and practice pp. 21-47. New York: Plenum. doi:10.1007/978-94-011-3992-2_3 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-3992-2_3
60. Miller J. D. Who is using the Web for science and health information? Science Communication 22 2001 256-273doi:10.1177/1075547001022003003 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1075547001022003003
61. Miller J. D. Breaking news or broken news [Electronic version] Nieman Reports 56 (3) 2002 18-21
62. Miller, J. D. (2003, February). The conceptualization and measurement of policy leadership. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Denver, CO.
63. Miller J. D. Public understanding of, and attitudes toward, scientific research: What we know and what we need to know [Electronic version] Public Understanding of Science 13 2004 273-294doi:10.1177/0963662504044908 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0963662504044908
64. Miller, J. D., & Kimmel, L. (2000). Biomedical communications. New York: Academic Press.
65. Miller, J. D., Pardo, R., & Niwa, F. (1997). Public perceptions of science and technology: A comparative study of the European Union, the United States, Japan, and Canada. Madrid, Spain: BBV Foundation.
66. Mitsuishi S. Kato K. Nakamura K. A new way to communicate science to the public: The creation of the Scientist Library [Electronic version] Public Understanding of Science 10 2001 231-241doi:10.1088/0963-6625/10/2/305 http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0963-6625/10/2/305
67. Moynihan R. Bero L. Ross-Degnan D. Henry D. Lee K. Watkins J.et al.Coverage by the news media of the benefits and risks of medications New England Journal of Medicine 342 2000 1645-1650doi:10.1056/NEJM200006013422206 http://dx.doi.org/10.1056/NEJM200006013422206
68. National Bioethics Advisory Commission. (1999). Ethical issues in human stem cell research. Retrieved from http://www.georgetown.edu/research/nrcbl/nbac/stemcell.pdf
69. National Science Foundation, Division of Science Resource Statistics. (2006). Science and engineering indicators 2006 [Electronic version]. Retrieved from http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind06/prsntlst.htm
70. Nisbet M. C. Lewenstein B. V. Biotechnology and the American media: The policy process and the elite press, 1970 to 1999 [Electronic version] Science Communication 23 (4) 2002 359-391doi:10.1177/107554700202300401 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/107554700202300401
71. Office of Science and Technology and the Wellcome Trust. Science and the public: A review of science communication and public attitudes toward science in Britain [Electronic version] Public Understanding of Science 10 2001 315-330doi:10.1088/0963-6625/10/3/305 http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0963-6625/10/3/305
72. Pardo R. Calvo F. The cognitive dimension of public perceptions of science: Methodological issues [Electronic version] Public Understanding of Science 13 2004 203-227doi:10.1177/0963662504045002 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0963662504045002
73. Pearson G. The participation of scientists in public understanding of science activities: The policy and practice of the U.K. Research Councils [Electronic version] Public Understanding of Science 10 2001 121-137doi:10.1088/0963-6625/10/1/309 http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0963-6625/10/1/309
74. Pedretti E. T. Kuhn meets T. Rex: Critical conversations and new directions in science centers and science museums Studies in Science Education 37 2002 1-41doi:10.1080/03057260208560176 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03057260208560176
75. Persson P. Science centers are thriving and going strong! [Electronic version] Public Understanding of Science 9 2000 449-460doi:10.1088/0963-6625/9/4/307 http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0963-6625/9/4/307
76. Pew Research Center for The People & The Press. (2004). Democrats gain edge in party identification. Retrieved August 8, 2006, from http://people-press.org/commentary/display.php3?analysisID=95
77. Priest S. H. Information equity, public understanding of science, and the biotechnology debate Journal of Communication 45 1995 39-55doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.1995.tb00713.x http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1995.tb00713.x
78. Priest S. H. U.S. public opinion divided over biotechnology? [Electronic version] Nature Biotechnology 18 2000 939-942doi:10.1038/79412 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/79412
79. Priest S. H. Misplaced faith: Communication variables as predictors of encouragement for biotechnology Science Communication 23 2001 97-110doi:10.1177/1075547001023002002 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1075547001023002002
80. Priest S. H. The public opinion climate for gene technologies in Canada and the United States: Competing voices, contrasting frames [Electronic version] Public Understanding of Science 15 2006 55-71doi:10.1177/0963662506052889 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0963662506052889
81. Reese S. D. Ballinger J. The roots of a sociology of news: Remembering Mr. Gates and social control in the newsroom [Electronic version] Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly 80 2001 641-658doi:10.1177/107769900107800402 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/107769900107800402
82. Rogers, C. L. (1997). Introduction. In D. Blum & M. Knudson (Eds.), A field guide for science writers pp. 213-216. New York: Oxford University Press.
83. Rose S. P. R. How to (or not to) communicate science Biochemical Society Transactions 31 2003 307-312doi:10.1042/BST0310307 http://dx.doi.org/10.1042/BST0310307
84. Rosenstone R. A. Comments on science in the visual media [Electronic version] Public Understanding of Science 12 2003 335-339doi:10.1177/0963662503123011 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0963662503123011
85. Rowe G. Frewer L. Sjuberg, L. Newspaper reporting of hazards in the UK and Sweden [Electronic version] Public Understanding of Science 9 2000 59-78doi:10.1088/0963-6625/9/1/304 http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0963-6625/9/1/304
86. Rowe G. Horlick-Jones T. Walls J. Pidgeon N. Difficulties in evaluating public engagement initiatives: Reflections on an evaluation of the UK GM Nation? Public debate about transgenic crops [Electronic version] Public Understanding of Science 14 2005 331-352doi:10.1177/0963662505056611 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0963662505056611
87. Sachsman D. Simon J. Valenti J. M. The environment reporters of New England [Electronic version] Science Communication 23 2002 410-441doi:10.1177/107554700202300403 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/107554700202300403
88. Salomone K. L. Greenberg M. R. Sandman P. M. Sachsman D. B. A question of quality: How journalists and news sources evaluate coverage of environmental risk Journal of Communication 40 1990 117-131doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.1990.tb02285.x http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1990.tb02285.x
89. Schmierbach M. Method matters: The influence of methodology on journalists’ assessments of social science research [Electronic version] Science Communication 26 2005 269-287doi:10.1177/1075547004273025 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1075547004273025
90. Schnabel U. God's formula and devil's contribution: Science in the press [Electronic version] Public Understanding of Science 12 2003 255-259doi:10.1177/0963662503123004 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0963662503123004
91. Shanahan J. Good J. Heat and hot air: Influence of local temperature on journalists’ coverage of global warming [Electronic version] Public Understanding of Science 9 2000 285-295doi:10.1088/0963-6625/9/3/305 http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0963-6625/9/3/305
92. Shanahan J. Scheufele D. Lee E. Attitudes about agricultural biotechnology and genetically modified organisms [Electronic version] Public Opinion Quarterly 65 2001 267-281doi:10.1086/322201 http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/322201
93. Shaw A. "It just goes against the grain": Public understandings of genetically modified (GM) food in the UK [Electronic version] Public Understanding of Science 11 2002 273-291doi:10.1088/0963-6625/11/3/305 http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0963-6625/11/3/305
94. Stamm K. R. Clark F. Eblacas P. R. Mass communication and public understanding of environmental problems: The case of global warming [Electronic version] Public Understanding of Science 9 2000 219-237doi:10.1088/0963-6625/9/3/302 http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0963-6625/9/3/302
95. Steinke J. Science in cyberspace: Science and engineering World Wide Web sites for girls [Electronic version] Public Understanding of Science 13 2004 7-30doi:10.1177/0963662504042691 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0963662504042691
96. Steinke J. Cultural representations of gender and science: Portrayals of female scientists and engineers in popular films [Electronic version] Science Communication 27 (1) 2005 27-63doi:10.1177/1075547005278610 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1075547005278610
97. Stephens L. F. News narratives about nano S8T in major U.S. and non-U.S. newspapers [Electronic version] Science Communication 27 (2) 2005 175-199doi:10.1177/1075547005281520 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1075547005281520
98. Sturgis P. Allum N. Science in society: Re-evaluating the deficit model of public attitudes [Electronic version] Public Understanding of Science 13 2004 55-74doi:10.1177/0963662504042690 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0963662504042690
99. Tankard, J. (2001). The empirical approach to the study of media framing. In S. Reese, O. Gandy, & A. Grant (Eds.), Framing public life: Perspectives on media and our understanding of the social world pp. 95-106. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
100. Tankard, J., Hendrickson, L., Silberman, J., Bliss, K., & Ghanem, S. (1991, August). Media frames: Approaches to conceptualization and measurement. Paper presented at the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication, Boston.
101. Ten Eyck T. A. The media and public opinion on genetics and biotechnology: Mirrors, windows, or walls? [Electronic version] Public Understanding of Science 14 2005 305-316doi:10.1177/0963662505052888 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0963662505052888
102. Ten Eyck T. A. Williment M. The national media and things genetic: Coverage in The New York Times (1971-2001) and The Washington Post (1977-2001) [Electronic version] Science Communication 25 (2) 2003 129-152doi:10.1177/1075547003259212 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1075547003259212
103. Tremayne M. Dunwoody S. Interactivity, information processing, and learning on the World Wide Web [Electronic version] Science Communication 23 (2) 2001 111-134doi:10.1177/1075547001023002003 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1075547001023002003
104. Ungar S. Knowledge, ignorance and the popular culture: Climate change versus the ozone hole [Electronic version] Public Understanding of Science 9 2000 297-312doi:10.1088/0963-6625/9/3/306 http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0963-6625/9/3/306
105. U.S. Census Bureau. (2006). Table 69: Self-described religious identification of adult population: 1990 and 2001. Retrieved August 8, 2006, from http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/population/religion
106. Valenti J. M. Tavana G. Report: Continuing science education for environmental journalists and science writers: in situ with the experts [Electronic version] Science Communication 27 2005 300-310doi:10.1177/1075547005282474 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1075547005282474
107. Vliverronen E. Stories of the "medicine cow": Representations of future promises in media discourse [Electronic version] Public Understanding of Science 13 2004 363-377doi:10.1177/0963662504046635 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0963662504046635
108. Weigold M. F. Communicating science: A review of the literature Science Communication 23 2001 164-193doi:10.1177/1075547001023002005 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1075547001023002005
109. Weigold M. F. Treise D. Attracting teen surfers to science Web sites [Electronic version] Public Understanding of Science 13 2004 229-248doi:10.1177/0963662504045504 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0963662504045504
110. Weingart P. Muhl C. Pansegrau P. Of power maniacs and unethical geniuses: Science and scientists in fiction film [Electronic version] Public Understanding of Science 12 2003 279-287doi:10.1177/0963662503123006 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0963662503123006
111. Wilson K. M. Drought, debate, and uncertainty: Measuring reporters’ knowledge and ignorance about climate change [Electronic version] Public Understanding of Science 9 2000 1-13doi:10.1088/0963-6625/9/1/301 http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0963-6625/9/1/301
112. Zehr S. C. Public representations of scientific uncertainty about global climate change [Electronic version] Public Understanding of Science 9 2000 85-103doi:10.1088/0963-6625/9/2/301 http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0963-6625/9/2/301
113. Zimmerman C. Bisanz G. L. Bisanz J. Klein J. S. Klein P. Science at the supermarket: A comparison of what appears in the popular press, experts’ advice to readers, and what students want to know [Electronic version] Public Understanding of Science 10 2001 37-58doi:10.1088/0963-6625/10/1/303 http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0963-6625/10/1/303