Search PubMed⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “public understanding of science”

Search indexed PubMed citations on genomics, clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health. Explore titles, authors and supplied subject terms, then open the PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2001

Sociology and the public understanding of science: from rationalization to rhetoric.

This paper contributes to the reappraisal of sociological theories of modernity inspired by the sociology of scientific knowledge (SSK). As much as these theories rely on received ideas about the nature of science that SSK has called into doubt, so do they rely on ideas about the public understanding of science. Public understanding of science has been assumed to conform to the monolithic logic and perception of science associated with rationalization, leading to an impoverished view of the cognitive outlook of the modern individual. Rationalization has become the basis for the construction of theoretical critique of science divorced from any clear reference to public understanding, with the result that theory has encountered considerable problems in accounting for public scepticism towards science. However, rather than question rationalization, the more typical strategy has been to propose radical changes in the modernization process, such as postmodernism and the risk society. Against this, an alternative view of public understanding is advanced drawn from SSK and rhetorical psychology. The existence of the sociological critique of science, and SSK in particular, suggests that the meaning of science in modernity is not monolithic but multiple, arising out of a central dilemma over the universal form of knowledge-claims and their necessarily particular, human and social grounding. This dilemma plays out not only in intellectual discourses about science, but also in the public's understanding of science. This argument is used to call for further sociological research into public understanding and to encourage sociologists to recognize the central importance of the topic to a proper understanding of modernity.

Humans↗
PubMed1996

Public understanding of science.

The scientist's lament about public understanding of science is often heard. But scientific understanding is not merely a matter of scientific literacy; it also embraces issues of trust in scientists, doctors, and sources of information. People have an appetite for scientific information, and they are good at sifting the information relevant to their lives. Nonetheless, the onus will increasingly be on the scientist to explain scientific findings in ways that a range of public can use. So, we need to improve the scientist's understanding of the public.

Communication↗
PubMed2000

Policy understanding of science, public trust and the BSE-CJD crisis.

The article investigates how institutional factors can produce risk using the Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE)-Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease (CJD) crisis in Britain as a case example. The paper focuses on the way policymakers understand science, and the role of precaution in issues of high uncertainty. It is argued that the failure to fully appreciate the complexity of the BSE-CJD situation resided in institutional arrangements that predisposed decision makers to adopt a counter productive approach in handling situations of high scientific uncertainty on the policy level. The article will demonstrate how these factors played out in the BSE-CJD crisis.

Animals↗
PubMed1997

Kaleidoscoping public understanding of science on hygiene, health and plague: a survey in the aftermath of a plague epidemic in India.

In September 1994 a plague epidemic hit a number of cities in India. Though the spread of the disease was controlled within a short period of about one month, its influences on various channels of information, on the functioning of government departments (especially health and sanitation), on the scientific community and on people's scientific information level were remarkable. This paper analyzes the responses of 1127 individuals interviewed in December 1994. The data indicates high levels of informedness about health, hygiene and plague, with little reference to extra-scientific explanations of the causes of the epidemic. Respondents expressed a high degree of confidence in the modern system of medicine. From this analysis we also infer that the public could not be described as 'superstitious', 'unscientific' or 'unhygienic': only when denied access to information and civic amenities did they show extra-scientific thinking or 'unhygienic' behaviour.

Disease Outbreaks↗
PubMed2004

[Ethics and research between governance and information].

In Italy, as well as in the European Union, there is an increasing need for a common forum on ethics within scientific research. As regards the pivot issue of science governance, a central point of collection and standardization of the variety of different Italian scientific research and bioethics environments is desirable. A focal point of collaboration and discussion, and a credited site for information handling and spreading are also wellcome. The Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche website on Bioethics is conceived with these purposes, in order to restore the scientific community role in science public understanding, scientific policy counselling, and boost the processes of communication, value-sharing and social strengthening, which are useful for material and spiritual development of our country.

Bioethical Issues↗
PubMed2003

How to (or not to) communicate science.

Protagonists for 'the public understanding of science' still sometimes fail to recognize that there is also a need for 'the scientists' understanding of the public' and that for most of science most of the time we are all public. 'Science' is communicated to 'the public' through popular books, museums, TV, the Internet, but far too often the present state of scientific belief is presented uncritically as the onward march of truth as discovered by Euro-American males. This has contributed to a widespread public concern, if not mistrust, in many areas of science, not least genetics and neuroscience. Although researchers often criticize the media for misrepresenting their work, the hype and simplifications often begin with the press releases put out by the researchers, their institutions and the scientific journals themselves. I conclude by looking more optimistically at the ways in which, by bringing natural science into theatre, novels and other art forms, the fragmentation of our culture may be diminished.

Communication↗
PubMed1999

Public understanding of genetics and Alzheimer disease.

It is generally thought that public understanding of science is inadequate. The definitions of "the public," "understanding," and "science" all need careful consideration in this formulation, with a greater focus on who should understand what and for what purposes. Improved public understanding depends on experts being reflective about the limits of their own expertise and the different needs of the many potential consumers of genetic knowledge. Media coverage of genetic discoveries has been extensive in recent years, but this coverage is often not useful and may even be misleading to families at risk for genetic disease. The Internet provides an alternative source of information as well as an interactive forum, one that has been widely used by persons interested in Alzheimer disease (AD). Internet-based activities hold great promise for providing interested members of the public with useful information and facilitating more substantive dialogue among physicians, researches, and laypersons regarding the genetic aspects of AD.

Alzheimer Disease↗
PubMed1997

Imprinted X-linked genes, 'feminine intuition' and the public (mis)understanding of science.

The report of an imprinted locus on the X chromosome influencing social behaviour was taken up with fervour by the media and reported in a way which neglected the reality of multifactorial complexity and the interplay between genetic and environmental contributors to gender differences. We summarize the background scientific details of the study and discuss the media reporting of those findings.

Genetic Linkage↗
PubMed2004

Lewis Wolpert discusses development and depression. Interview by Joanne Clough.

Lewis Wolpert is Professor of Biology as Applied to Medicine in the Department of Anatomy and Developmental Biology at University College, London, UK. His research interests focus on the mechanisms that are involved in embryonic development. Lewis originally trained as a civil engineer in South Africa but in 1955 made the move to research in cellular biology at King's College, London. He was made a Fellow of the Royal Society in 1980 and awarded the CBE in 1990. Lewis was also made a Fellow of the Royal Society of Literature in 1999 and has presented science on both radio and TV for several years. He was awarded The Royal Society Michael Faraday Prize in 2000 for his contribution to the public understanding of science, most notably through his Chairmanship of the Committee for the Public Understanding of Science (COPUS; 1993-1998). He is the author of numerous books, including Malignant Sadness: The Anatomy of Depression, Principles of Development, The Unnatural Nature of Science and The Triumph of the Embryo. He also writes a regular column for The Independent.

Animals↗
PubMed2001

Analytical paradigms: the epistemological distances between scientists, policy makers, and the public.

The effective use of evidence and its resultant knowledge is increasingly recognized as critical in risk analysis. This, in turn, has led to a growing concern over issues of epistemology in risk communication, and, in particular, interest in how knowledge is constructed and employed by the key players in risk--scientists, policy makers, and the public. This article uses a critical theoretical approach to explore how evidence is recognized and validated, and how limits are placed on knowledge by scientists, policy makers, and the public. It brings together developments in the sociology of science, policy and policy development, public understandings of science, and risk communication and analysis to explicate the differing forms of rationality employed by each group. The work concludes that each group employs different, although equally legitimate, forms of rationality when evaluating evidence and generating knowledge around risky environment and health issues. Scientists, policy makers, and the public employ scientific, political, and social rationality, respectively. These differing forms of rationality reflect underlying epistemological distances from which can develop considerable misunderstandings and misinterpretations.

Environmental Health↗
PubMed2000

Why scientists should cooperate with journalists.

Despite a widespread impression that the public is woefully ignorant of science and cares little for the subject, U.S. National Science Foundation (NSF) surveys show the majority are very interested and understand that they are not well informed about science. The data are consistent with the author's view that the popularity of pseudoscience does not indicate a rejection of science. If this is so, opportunities for scientists to communicate with the public promise a more rewarding result than is commonly believed among scientists. In fact, the increasing visibility of science in the mass media correlates with a slow, steady improvement in public understanding of science in recent years.

Communication↗
PubMed2005

Public engagement with science? Local understandings of a vaccine trial in the Gambia.

This paper considers how parents engage with a large, internationally supported childhood pneumococcal vaccine trial in The Gambia. Current analysis and professional reflection on public engagement is strongly shaped by the imperatives of public health and research institutions, and is thus couched in terms of acceptance and refusal, and 'informed consent'. In contrast Gambian parents' perspectives on the trial are couched in conceptual and experiential terms that are linked to their wider dilemmas of raising infants amidst the hazards of globally connected village life. Ethnographic research reveals how for most parents, longer-term experiences of the organization managing the research (the UK Medical Research Council Laboratories in The Gambia) as a health-providing institution override their reflection on trial-specific aims. A decision to participate in the trial involves a perceived balance of benefit and danger -- in the extreme, of free medical treatment, versus one's child being drained of blood for sale to Europe. Social relations (especially gender relations) shape this calculus and study participation. This case suggests how the idea of 'public engagement with science' in a globalized context might be recast, with implications for debates in biomedical ethics, and the sustainability of public participation in medical research.

Attitude to Health↗