scholarly journals Science communication in regenerative medicine: Implications for the role of academic society and science policy

2017 ◽  
Vol 7 ◽  
pp. 89-97 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ryuma Shineha ◽  
Yusuke Inoue ◽  
Tsunakuni Ikka ◽  
Atsuo Kishimoto ◽  
Yoshimi Yashiro
Keyword(s):  
Regenerative Medicine ◽  
Science Policy ◽  
Science Communication ◽  
Academic Society

Genome Editing or Genome Cutting? Communicating CRISPR in the British and German Press

2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 45-66
Author(s):  
Yoo Yung Lee
Keyword(s):  
Science Communication ◽  
Public Discourse ◽  
Word Processor ◽  
Public Science ◽  
German Press ◽  
Legal Questions ◽  
British Press ◽  
Legal Frameworks

AbstractIn this paper, I analyze the role of metaphors in public science communication. Specifically, it is a case study of the metaphors for CRISPR/Cas9, a controversial biotechnology that enables scientists to alter the DNA of any organism with unprecedented ease and has raised a number of societal, ethical and legal questions concerning its applications – most notably, on its usage on the human germline. Using a corpus of 600 newspaper articles from the British and German press, I show that there are striking differences in how these two European countries construe CRISPR in public discourse: the British press promotes the image of CRISPR as a word processor that allows scientists to edit the DNA, replacing spelling mistakes with healthy genes, whereas the German press depicts CRISPR as genetic scissors and thereby underlines the risk of mutations after cutting the DNA. I suggest that this contrast reflects differences in the legal frameworks of the respective countries and may influence the attitudes towards emerging biotechnologies among the British and German public.

Science communication and mediatised environmental conflict: A cautionary tale

2021 ◽  
pp. 096366252098513
Author(s):  
Claire Konkes ◽  
Kerrie Foxwell-Norton
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
Political Communication ◽  
Science Communication ◽  
Climate Science ◽  
Environmental Conflict ◽  
Cautionary Tale ◽  
James Cook ◽  
Social Sphere ◽  
Tenured Position

When Australian physicist, Peter Ridd, lost his tenured position with James Cook University, he was called a ‘whistleblower’, ‘contrarian academic’ and ‘hero of climate science denial’. In this article, we examine the events surrounding his dismissal to better understand the role of science communication in organised climate change scepticism. We discuss the sophistry of his complaint to locate where and through what processes science communication becomes political communication. We argue that the prominence of scientists and scientific knowledge in debates about climate change locates science, as a social sphere or fifth pillar in Hutchins and Lester’s theory of mediatised environmental conflict. In doing so, we provide a model to better understand how science communication can be deployed during politicised debates.

From rationalization to rationality: (In)sustainability of strategic narratives in  science communication, ranging from climatic change to hydro-meteorological extremes

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mónica Ribau ◽  
Rui Perdigão ◽  
Julia Hall
Keyword(s):  
Climatic Change ◽  
Science Communication ◽  
Scientific Discourse ◽  
Living Condition ◽  
High Impact ◽  
Scientific Models ◽  
Public Confidence ◽  
Scientific Culture ◽  
Strategic Narratives

<p>Strategic narratives (persuasive use of story systems) in science communication have been gathering<br>increasing support, especially in the face of misunderstandings about high-impact climatic change and hydrometeorologic extremes.<br>The use of these narratives reveals, in line with linguistic research, that traditional scientific discourse<br>conception has become outdated. Should scientific discourse be centered on the description of discoveries?<br>Should the role of political discourse be to convince someone to act? Before answering these, it is necessary to<br>understand the crucial function that uncertainty plays in communication, along with its consequences in the<br>concepts of objectivity and truth. More importantly, understanding its role in scientific society and sustainability.<br>Unable to eliminate uncertainty altogether, science becomes an essential escort to recognize, manage<br>and communicate its pertinency. However, the most popular strategic narratives sideline uncertainty as a threat.<br>Denialists follow a similar approach, though they communicate uncertainty to discredit evidence. Comparatively,<br>in their latest Assessment Report, the IPCC characterized uncertainty whilst stating: “uncertainty about impacts<br>does not prevent immediate action”.<br>Scientific discourse outputs and social reality constructions influence each other. The moralization of<br>science communication reveals how XVII century revolutionary skepticism can now be perceived as a threat, and<br>facts expected from science can be deemed dogmatic truths and perceived as decrees through rationalism and as<br>an extension of Judeo-Christian philosophical influence. Equally important, uncertainty reinforces individual<br>freedom, while society grasps and recognizes certainty as security and demands it from institutions, accepting<br>degrees of authoritarianism to maintain a tolerable living condition.<br>From “Climate Emergency” to “Thousand-Year Flood”, public interest in climatic change and extremes<br>increases following high-impact events, yet trust in science plunges into a deep polarized divide among absolute<br>acceptance and outright rejection relative to the bold headlines conveyed not only in the media but also in some<br>scientific literature.<br>Political, religious and activist leaders strike one as prophets acting in the name of science. From<br>rationalism to rationality, scientific culture is pivotal to the analysis of complexity, objectivity, and uncertainty in<br>the definition of truth (absent from epistemological discussions for centuries). Humor/sarcasm, literature or<br>dialectic are examples of how to communicate entropy of scientific models, while reflecting about the role,<br>uncertainty, and mistake, retain in life.<br>“People want certainty, not knowledge”, said Bertrand Russel. However, neither science nor democracy<br>work like that, rather taking reality as having shades of grey instead of a reduced black-or-white dichotomy.<br>Science is not about giving just one single number to problems clearly not reducible to such, as that gives a false<br>sense of certainty and security in an entropic world where we cannot control everything.<br>In order to objectively analyze discourses in light of their uncertainty features, detecting whether they<br>contain polarized, absolutistic narrative patterns, we introduce a new process-consistent Artificial Intelligence<br>framework, building from Perdigão (2020, https://doi.org/10.46337/200930). The complementarity of our<br>approach relative to both social and information technologies is brought out, along with ways forward to reinforce<br>the fundamental role of uncertainty in scientific communication, and to strengthen public confidence in the<br>scientific endeavor.</p>

The Role of Biomaterials and Scaffolds on Immune Responses in Regenerative Medicine: Macrophage Phenotype Modulation by Biomaterial Properties and Scaffold Architectures

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ezgi Antmen ◽  
Nihal Engin Vrana ◽  
Vasif Hasirci
Keyword(s):  
Regenerative Medicine ◽  
Immune Responses ◽  
Macrophage Phenotype ◽  
Immune Reactions

Scaffolds are an integral part of the regenerative medicine field. The contact of biomaterials with tissue, as was clearly observed over the years, induces immune reactions in a material and...

scholarly journals Exploring the intersections: researchers and communication professionals' perspectives on the organizational role of science communication

2020 ◽  
Vol 24 (3) ◽  
pp. 207-226 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kaisu Koivumäki ◽  
Clare Wilkinson
Keyword(s):  
Science Communication ◽  
Large Scale ◽  
Institutional Environment ◽  
Structured Interviews ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Organizational Influences ◽  
Research Organizations ◽  
Funding Policies ◽  
Negative Impacts

PurposeThis paper reports on research exploring the intersections between researchers and communication professionals' perspectives on the objectives, funders and organizational influences on their science communication practices.Design/methodology/approachExamining one context, the inter-organizational BCDC Energy Research project based at five different research organizations in Finland, this paper presents data from semi-structured interviews with 17 researchers and 15 communication professionals.FindingsThe results suggest that performance-based funding policies that drive the proliferation of large-scale research projects can create challenges. In particular, a challenge arises in generating a shared sense of identity and purpose amongst researchers and communication professionals. This may have unintended negative impacts on the quality and cohesiveness of the science communication which occurs.Research limitations/implicationsThe study was exploratory in nature and focuses on one organizational and institutional environment. Further research with a wider number of projects, as well as funders, would be conducive to a greater understanding of the issues involved.Practical implicationsOn a practical level, this research suggests that the creation of clearer communications awareness and guidance may be helpful in some large-scale projects, particularly involving broad numbers of organizations, individual researchers and funders.Originality/valueThis is one of the first studies examining the perspectives of both researchers and communication professionals working over one project, drawing together a range of different institutional and disciplinary perspectives. The results highlight the importance of the influences of funding on science communication aims, assumptions, cultures and structures. The article articulates the need for further research in this area.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document