CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 313Climate Change Communication and PerceptionMedia Studies and CommunicationScience and Science Education

Science communication as political communication

Open access
Scheufele, Dietram A.·2014·Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
DOI 10.1073/pnas.1317516111PMC PMC4183176
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Scientific debates in modern societies often blur the lines between the science that is being debated and the political, moral, and legal implications that come with its societal applications. This manuscript traces the origins of this phenomenon to professional norms within the scientific discipline and to the nature and complexities of modern science and offers an expanded model of science communication that takes into account the political contexts in which science communication takes place. In a second step, it explores what we know from empirical work in political communication, public opinion research, and communication research about the dynamics that determine how issues are debated and attitudes are formed in political environments. Finally, it discusses how and why it will be increasingly important for science communicators to draw from these different literatures to ensure that the voice of the scientific community is heard in the broader societal debates surrounding science.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1073/pnas.1317516111

Cites

6 of 6 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Effective science communication is dependent on factors such as political context and the values of different publics.

    “As effective science communication is dependent on factors such as political context (Scheufele 2014) and the values (Corner et al 2014) of different publics”

    From Framing climate change for effective communication: a systematic map (2020) · cites this paper as Scheufele 2014

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 56

  1. Miller JD, Scott EC, Okamoto S (2006) Science communication: Public acceptance of evolution. Science 313(5788):765-766.
  2. Nisbet MC, Myers T (2007) The Polls-Trends: Twenty years of public opinion about global warming. Public Opin Q 71(3):444-470.
  3. Ho SS, Brossard D, Scheufele DA (2008) Effects of value predispositions, mass media use, and knowledge on public attitudes toward embryonic stem cell research. Int J Public Opin Res 20(2):171-192.
  4. Westfall RS (1985) Science and patronage: Galileo and the telescope. Isis 76(1):11-30.
  5. Jasanoff S (2004) States of Knowledge: The Co-Production of Science and Social Order (Routledge, New York).
  6. Jasanoff S (1990) The Fifth Branch: Science Advisers as Policymakers (Harvard Univ Press, Cambridge, MA).
  7. Halford B (2006) The world according to Rick. Chem Eng News 84(41):13-19.
  8. Corley EA, Scheufele DA, Hu Q (2009) Of risks and regulations: How leading U.S. nanoscientists form policy stances about nanotechnology. J Nanopart Res 11(7): 1573-1585.
  9. Weingart P (1998) Science and the media. Res Policy 27(8):869-879.
  10. Peters HP, et al. (2008) Science communication: Interactions with the mass media. Science 321(5886):204-205.
  11. Nisbet MC, Brossard D, Kroepsch A (2003) Framing science: The stem cell controversy in an age of press/politics. Harv Int J PressPolit 8(2):36-70.
  12. Nisbet MC, Huge M (2006) Attention cycles and frames in the plant biotechnology debate: Managing power and participation through the press/policy connection. Harv Int J PressPolit 11(2):3-40.
  13. Kohlstedt SG, Sokal M, Lewenstein BV (1999) The Establishment of Science in America: 150 Years of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (Rutgers Univ Press, New Brunswick, NJ).
  14. Nirenberg MW (1967) Will society be prepared? Science 157(3789):633.
  15. Khushf G (2006) An ethic for enhancing human performance through integrative technologies. Managing Nano-Bio-Info-Cogno Innovations: Converging Technologies in Society, eds Bainbridge WS, Roco MC (Springer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands), pp 255-278.
  16. Gibson DG, et al. (2010) Creation of a bacterial cell controlled by a chemically syn- thesized genome. Science 329(5987):52-56.
  17. Berg P, Baltimore D, Brenner S, Roblin RO, 3rd, Singer MF (1975) Asilomar conference on recombinant DNA molecules. Science 188(4192):991-994.
  18. Luria S (1977) Reflections on democracy, science, and cancer. Bull Am Acad Arts Sci 30(5):20-32.
  19. Cicerone RJ (2006) Celebrating and rethinking science communication. Focus 6(3):3.
  20. Kleinman DL, Delborne JA, Anderson AA (2011) Engaging citizens. Public Underst Sci 20(2):221-240.
  21. Kurath M, Gisler P (2009) Informing, involving or engaging? Science communication, in the ages of atom-, bio-and nanotechnology. Public Underst Sci 18(5):559-573.
  22. Rowe G, Frewer LJ (2005) A typology of public engagement mechanisms. Sci Technol Human Values 30(2):251-290.
  23. Scheufele DA (2011) Modern citizenship or policy dead end? Evaluating the need for public participation in science policy making, and why public meetings may not be the answer. Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy Research Paper Series (Harvard Univ Press, Cambridge, MA), paper R-34.
  24. Corley EA, Scheufele DA (2010) Outreach gone wrong? When we talk nano to the public, we are leaving behind key audiences. Scientist 24(1):22.
  25. White DM (1950) The 'gatekeeper': A case study in the selection of news. Journal Q 27(3):383-390.
  26. Siebert FS, Peterson T, Schramm W (1956) Four Theories of the Press (Univ of Illinois Press, Urbana, IL).
  27. Boykoff MT (2007) Flogging a dead norm? Newspaper coverage of anthropogenic climate change in the United States and United Kingdom from 2003 to 2006. Area 39(2):470-481.
  28. Boykoff MT, Boykoff JM (2004) Balance as bias: Global warming and the US prestige press. Glob Environ Change 14(2):125-136.
  29. Molotch H, Lester M (1974) News as purposive behavior: On the strategic use of routine events, accidents, and scandals. Am Sociol Rev 39(1):101-112.
  30. Dudo AD, Dunwoody S, Scheufele DA (2011) The emergence of nano news: Tracking thematic trends and changes in U.S. newspaper coverage of nanotechnology. Jour- nalism Mass Comm 88(1):55-75.
  31. Berkowitz D (1992) Who sets the media agenda? The ability of policymakers to de- termine news decisions. Public Opinion, the Press, and Public Policy, ed Kennamer JD (Praeger, Westport, CT), pp 81-102.
  32. Brossard D, Scheufele DA (2013) Social science: Science, new media, and the public. Science 339(6115):40-41.
  33. Ladwig P, Anderson AA, Brossard D, Scheufele DA, Shaw B (2010) Narrowing the nano discourse? Mater Today 13(5):52-54.
  34. Kosicki GM (1993) Problems and opportunities in agenda-setting research. J Commun 43(2):100-127.
  35. Iyengar S, Kinder DR (1987) News That Matters: Television and American Opinion (Univ of Chicago Press, Chicago).
  36. Scheufele DA, Tewksbury D (2007) Framing, agenda setting, and priming: The evo- lution of three media effects models. J Commun 57(1):9-20.
  37. Zaller J, Feldman S (1992) A simple theory of survey response: Answering questions versus revealing preferences. Am J Pol Sci 36(3):579-616.
  38. Hamilton LC, Stampone MD (2013) Blowin' in the wind: Short-term weather and belief in anthropogenic climate change. Weather Clim Soc 5(2):112-119.
  39. Price V, Tewksbury D (1997) News values and public opinion: A theoretical account of media priming and framing. Progress in Communication Sciences: Advances in Per- suasion, eds Barett GA, Boster FJ (Ablex, Greenwich, CT), Vol 13, pp 173-212.
  40. Nisbet MC, Scheufele DA (2009) What's next for science communication? Promising directions and lingering distractions. Am J Bot 96(10):1767-1778.
  41. Nisbet MC, Scheufele DA (2007) The future of public engagement. Scientist 21(10): 38-44.
  42. Noelle-Neumann E (1974) The spiral of silence: A theory of public opinion. J Commun 24(2):43-51.
  43. Glynn CJ, Hayes AF, Shanahan J (1997) Perceived support for one's opinions and willingness to speak out: A meta-analysis of survey studies on the ''spiral of silence''. Public Opin Q 61(3):452-463.
  44. Scheufele DA, Shanahan J, Lee E (2001) Real talk: Manipulating the dependent var- iable in spiral of silence research. Communic Res 28(3):304-324.
  45. Cacciatore MA, Scheufele DA, Corley EA (2011) From enabling technology to appli- cations: The evolution of risk perceptions about nanotechnology. Public Underst Sci 20(3):385-404.
  46. Bauer MW (2002) Controversial medical and agri-food biotechnology: A cultivation analysis. Public Underst Sci 11(2):93-111.
  47. Asch SE (1955) Opinions and social pressure. Sci Am 193(5):31-35.
  48. Brossard D, Lewenstein B (2009) A critical appraisal of model of public understanding of science: Using practice to inform theory. Understanding Science: New Agendas in Science Communication, eds Kahlor L, Stout P (Routledge, New York), pp 11-39.
  49. Druckman JN (2012) The politics of motivation. Crit Rev 24(2):199-216.
  50. Brossard D, Scheufele DA, Kim E, Lewenstein BV (2009) Religiosity as a perceptual filter: Examining processes of opinion formation about nanotechnology. Public Un- derst Sci 18(5):546-558.
  51. Kahan DM, Braman D, Slovic P, Gastil J, Cohen G (2009) Cultural cognition of the risks and benefits of nanotechnology. Nat Nanotechnol 4(2):87-90.
  52. Cacciatore MA, Binder AR, Scheufele DA, Shaw BR (2012) Public attitudes toward biofuels: Effects of knowledge, political partisanship, and media use. Politics Life Sci 31(1-2):36-51.
  53. Tetlock PE (1983) Accountability and complexity of thought. J Pers Soc Psychol 45(1): 74-83.
  54. Scheufele DA, Hardy BW, Brossard D, Waismel-Manor IS, Nisbet E (2006) Democracy based on difference: Examining the links between structural heterogeneity, hetero- geneity of discussion networks, and democratic citizenship. J Commun 56(4):728-753.
  55. Scheufele DA, Nisbet MC, Brossard D, Nisbet EC (2004) Social structure and citizenship: Examining the impacts of social setting, network heterogeneity, and informational variables on political participation. Polit Commun 21(3):315-338.
  56. Xenos MA, Becker AB, Anderson AA, Brossard D, Scheufele DA (2011) Stimulating upstream engagement: An experimental study of nanotechnology information seeking. Soc Sci Q 92(5):1191-1214.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Scheufele, D. A.
Affiliations
University of Wisconsin–Madison (US)
Corresponding author
Scheufele, Dietram A.
ORCID
Scheufele, Dietram A.
Venue
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Publisher
National Academy of Sciences
Published
2014-09-15
Volume
111
Issue
supplement_4
Pages
13585-13592
ISSN
  • 0027-8424 (ISSN-L)
  • 1091-6490
DOI
10.1073/pnas.1317516111
PMC
PMC4183176
OpenAlex
W2053067975
Cited by
313
References
6
Citations by year
2026: 35 · 2025: 37 · 2024: 26 · 2023: 29 · 2022: 38 · 2021: 31 · 2020: 26 · 2019: 25 · 2018: 31 · 2017: 14 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 2
FWCI
38.02
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation (0832760, 0937591, 0940143)
  • Division of Materials Research (DMR-0832760)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Climate Change Communication and Perception
  • Social Sciences › Communication › Media Studies and Communication
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Science and Science Education
Keywords
science communication, political communication, scientific debate, science and politics, public opinion, attitudes, scientific communities, communication models
MeSH terms
Communication, Humans, Mass Media, Models, Theoretical, Politics, Public Opinion, Science, Social Environment, Information Dissemination, Dissent and Disputes

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review