Science and Society - A New Era for Science Communication in the Context of Sustainable Development

[1] Hart PS, Erik CN. Boomerang effects in science communication: how motivated reasoning and identity cues amplify opinion polarization about climate mitigation policies. Comm Res. 2012;39(6):701-23. DOI: 10.1177/0093650211416646. Search in Google Scholar

[2] Priest S. Communicating climate change and other evidence-based controversies. In Priest SH, Goodwin J, Dahlstrom MF, editors. Ethics and Practice in Science Communication. Chicago; London: The University of Chicago Press; 2018. pp. 54-73. ISBN: 9780226540603. Search in Google Scholar

[3] Funk C, Hefferon M, Kennedy B, Johnson C. Trust and Mistrust in Americans’ Views of Scientific Experts. Pew Research Center Web Site. 2019. Available from: https://www.pewresearch.org/science/wpcontent/uploads/sites/16/2019/08/PS_08.02.19_trust.in_.scientists_FULLREPORT.pdf. Search in Google Scholar

[4] Delaney N. Science Communication - Achievements in Horizon 2020 and Recommendations on the Way Forward. European Commission Web Site; 2020. Available from: https://apre.it/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/KI0420259ENN.en_.pdf. Search in Google Scholar

[5] Leshner AI. Trust in science is not the problem. Issues Sci Technol. 2021;37(3):16-8. Available from: https://issues.org/trust-in-science-is-not-the-problem-engagement-leshner/. Search in Google Scholar

[6] Hendriks F, Kienhues D, Bromme R. Trust in Science and the Science of Trust. In: Blöbaum B, editor. Trust and Communication in a Digitized World. Models and Concepts of Trust Research. Springer; 2016. pp. 143-59. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-28059-2_8. Search in Google Scholar

[7] Gundersen T. Scientists as experts: A distinct role? Stud Hist Philos Sci A. 2018;67:52-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.shpsa.2018.02.006. Search in Google Scholar

[8] Peters HP. Scientists as public experts. In: Bucchi M, Trench B, editors. Handbook of Public Communication of Science and Technology. London: Routledge; 2014. pp. 131-46. DOI: 10.4324/9780203483794. Search in Google Scholar

[9] Seethaler S, Evans JH, Gere C, Rajagopalan RM. Science, values, and science communication: Competencies for pushing beyond the deficit model. Sci Comm. 2019;41(3):378-88. DOI: 10.1177/1075547019847484. Search in Google Scholar

[10] Brown CP, Propst SM, Woolley M. Report: Helping researchers make the case for science. Sci Comm. 2004;25(3):294-303. DOI: 10.1177/1075547003262599. Search in Google Scholar

[11] Jensen, P. Who’s helping to bring science to the people? Nature. 2005;434(7036):956. DOI: 10.1177/0963662510383632. Search in Google Scholar

[12] Jensen E. The problems with science communication evaluation. J Co-op Organ Manage. 2014;13(01),C04. DOI: 10.22323/2.13010304. Search in Google Scholar

[13] Jensen P, Croissant Y. CNRS researchers’ popularisation activities: A progress report. J Sci Comm. 2007;6(3),A01. DOI: 10.22323/2.06030201. Search in Google Scholar

[14] Jensen P, Kreimer P, Rouquier JB, Croissant Y. Scientists who engage with society perform better academically. Sci Public Policy. 2008;35(7):527-41. DOI: 10.3152/030234208X329130. Search in Google Scholar

[15] Critchley CR. Public opinion and trust in scientists: the role of the research context, and the perceived motivation of stem cell researchers. Public Underst Sci. 2008;17(3):309-27. DOI: 10.1177/0963662506070162. Search in Google Scholar

[16] Medvecky F. Fairness in knowing: Science communication and epistemic justice. Sci Eng Ethics. 2018;24(5):1393-408. DOI: 10.1007/s11948-017-9977-0 Search in Google Scholar

[17] Medvecky F, Leach J. The ethics of science communication. J Sci Commun. 2017;6(04). DOI: 10.22323/2.16040501. Search in Google Scholar

[18] Trench B, Miller S. Policies and practices in supporting scientists’ public communication through training. Sci Public Policy. 2012;39(6):722-31. DOI: 10.1093/scipol/scs090. Search in Google Scholar

[19] Webler T. Why risk communicators should care about the fairness and competence of their public engagement process. In: Arvai JL, Rivers L, editors. Effective Risk Communication. Earthscan; 2013. pp. 121-41. ISBN: 9780203109861. Search in Google Scholar

[20] Wu T. Is the first amendment obsolete? Mich L Rev. 2018;117(547):548-9. DOI: 10.36644/mlr.117.3.first. Search in Google Scholar

[21] Eysenbach G. Credibility of health information and digital media: New perspectives and implications for youth. In: Metzger MJ, Flanagin AJ, editors. Digital Media, Youth, and Credibility. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press; 2008. pp. 123-54. DOI: 10.1162/dmal.9780262562324.123. Search in Google Scholar

[22] Allgaier J. Science and environmental communication on YouTube: strategically 496 distorted communications in online videos on climate change and climate engineering. Front Commun, Sec Sci Environ Communication. 2019;4:2-15. DOI: 10.3389/fcomm.2019.00036. Search in Google Scholar

[23] Besley JC, Nisbe M. How scientists view the public, the media and the political process. Public Underst Sci. 2013;22(6):644-59. DOI: 10.1177/0963662511418743. Search in Google Scholar

[24] Borchelt RE. Communicating the future: report of the research roadmap panel for public communication of science and technology in the twenty-first century. Sci Comm. 2021;23(2):194-211. DOI: 10.1177/1075547001023002006. Search in Google Scholar

[25] Brossard D, Scheufele DA. Science, new media, and the public. Science. 2013;339(6115):40-1. DOI: 10.1126/science.1232329. Search in Google Scholar

[26] Owen R, Macnaghten P, Stilgoe J. Responsible research and innovation: From science in society to science for society, with society. Sci Public Policy. 2012;39:751-60. DOI: 10.1093/scipol/scs093. Search in Google Scholar

[27] Owens S. Commentary. ‘Engaging the public’: Information and deliberation in environmental policy. Environ Plann. 2000;32(7):1141-8. DOI: 10.1068/a3330. Search in Google Scholar

[28] Bray B, France B, Gilbert JK. Identifying the essential elements of effective science communication: What do the experts say? Int J Sci Educ Part B. 2012;2(1):23-41. DOI: 10.1080/21548455.2011.611627. Search in Google Scholar

[29] Lorono-Leturiondo M, Davies SR. Responsibility and science communication: scientists’ experiences of and perspectives on public communication activities. J Responsible Innov. 2015;5:170-85. DOI: 10.1080/23299460.2018.1434739. Search in Google Scholar

[30] Stilgoe J, Lock SJ, Wilsdon J. Why should we promote public engagement with science? Public Underst Sci. 2014;23(1):4-15. DOI: 10.1177/0963662513518154. Search in Google Scholar

[31] Weingart P, Joubert M. The conflation of motives of science communication - causes, consequences, remedies. J Sci Comm. 2019;18(3):Y01. DOI: 10.22323/2.18030401. Search in Google Scholar

[32] Young N, Matthews R. Experts’ understanding of the public: Knowledge control in a risk controversy. Public Underst Sci. 2007;16(2):123-44. DOI: 10.1177/0963662507060586. Search in Google Scholar

[33] Bowater L, Yeoman K. Science Communication: A Practical Guide for Scientists. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell; 2012, ISBN: 9781118406663. Search in Google Scholar

[34] Regmi PR, Waithaka E, Paudyal A, Simkhada P, van Teijlingen E. Guide to the design and application of online questionnaire surveys. Nepal J Epidemiol. 2016;6(4):640-4. DOI: 10.3126%2Fnje.v6i4.17258. Search in Google Scholar

[35] O’Connor C, Murphy M. Going viral: doctors must tackle fake news in the COVID 19 pandemic. National Center for Biotechnology Information, BMJ 2020;369:m1587. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.m1587. Search in Google Scholar

[36] Kappel K, Holmen SJ. Why science communication, and does it work? A taxonomy of science communication aims and a survey of the empirical evidence. Front Commun. 2019;4(55). DOI: 10.3389/fcomm.2019.00055. Search in Google Scholar

[37] Tagliabue F, Galassi L, Mariani P. The “pandemic” of disinformation in COVID-19. SN Compr Clin Med. 2020;2:1287-9. DOI: 10.1007/s42399-020-00439-1. Search in Google Scholar

[38] Frontasyeva M, Kamnev A. Ecology and society. Impacted ecosystems. Part I. Chem Didact Ecol Metrol. 2018; 23(1-2):7-29. DOI: 10.1515/cdem-2018-0001. Search in Google Scholar

[39] Kramarová L, Prokša M. Pupils’ preconceptions about heat, temperature and energy. Chem Didact Ecol Metrol. 2020;25(1-2):79-91. DOI: 10.2478/cdem-2020-0005. Search in Google Scholar