Effectiveness of Plain Language in environmental policy documentation for the general public

Communicating Science through Comics: A Method

Publications ◽

10.3390/publications6030038 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 6 (3) ◽

pp. 38 ◽

Cited By ~ 8

Author(s):

Jan Friesen ◽

John Van Stan ◽

Skander Elleuche

Keyword(s):

General Public ◽

Science Communication ◽

Scientific Information ◽

Scientific Publication ◽

Plain Language ◽

Flexible Framework ◽

Scientific Results

Scientists are trained to tell stories, scientific stories. Training is also needed to comprehend and contextualize these highly nuanced and technical stories because they are designed to explicitly convey scientific results, delineate their limitations, and describe a reproducible “plot” so that any thorough reenactment can achieve a similar conclusion. Although a carefully constructed scientific story may be crystal clear to other scientists in the same discipline, they are often inaccessible to broader audiences. This is problematic as scientists are increasingly expected to communicate their work to broader audiences that range from specialists in other disciplines to the general public. In fact, science communication is of increasing importance to acquire funding and generate effective outreach, as well as introduce, and sometimes even justify, research to society. This paper suggests a simple and flexible framework to translate a complex scientific publication into a broadly-accessible comic format. Examples are given for embedding scientific details into an easy-to-understand storyline. A background story is developed and panels are generated that convey scientific information via plain language coupled with recurring comic elements to maximize comprehension and memorability. This methodology is an attempt to alleviate the inherent limitations of interdisciplinary and public comprehension that result from standard scientific publication and dissemination practices. We also hope that this methodology will help colleagues enter into the field of science comics.

Download Full-text

Reference levels in the context of Fukushima - lessons learned and a challenge for the radiation protection system

Annals of the ICRP ◽

10.1016/j.icrp.2012.08.001 ◽

2012 ◽

Vol 41 (3-4) ◽

pp. 282-285 ◽

Cited By ~ 2

Author(s):

K. Sakai

Keyword(s):

Radiation Protection ◽

School Children ◽

General Public ◽

Radiation Effects ◽

Scientific Information ◽

Lessons Learned ◽

Protection System ◽

Reference Level ◽

Radiological Protection ◽

Plain Language

A number of dose criteria were set after the accident in Fukushima, including a criterion regarding the use of school playgrounds in Fukushima. Considering the band of 1–20 mSv/year recommended by the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) for public exposure under existing exposure situations, Japanese authorities set 20 mSv/year as a ‘start line’ for reducing the dose to school children. However, this led to considerable confusion among the general public and some experts. They thought that the dose limit was increased to 20 mSv/year (20 times as high as before), and that school children could be exposed to 20 mSv in 1 year. This is just an example of confusion caused by inadequate comprehension of radiation effects, misunderstanding of radiation protection concepts, or both. Another issue was raised regarding the higher radiosensitivity of children compared with adults. In the 2007 ICRP Recommendations, a higher risk coefficient is given to the whole population than the adult population, because the whole population includes children; a subpopulation with higher radiosensitivity and a longer life span. The point of argument was whether a lower reference level should be set for children alone. Radiation protection experts should continue to collect scientific information to improve the radiation protection system. In addition, it is the role of these experts to explain the framework of radiation protection to the general public in plain language.

Download Full-text

Public participation in environmental policy: considering scientific, counter-scientific and non-scientific contributions

Public Understanding of Science ◽

10.1088/0963-6625/5/3/001 ◽

1996 ◽

Vol 5 (3) ◽

pp. 183-204 ◽

Cited By ~ 139

Author(s):

Sally Eden

Keyword(s):

Social Interaction ◽

Environmental Policy ◽

Environmental Education ◽

Policy Implementation ◽

Public Participation ◽

General Public ◽

Policy Making ◽

Environmental Issues ◽

The Public ◽

Lay Involvement

Environmental policy depends for its success on public participation. However, the scientific construction of environmental issues often means that such participation in policy-making is difficult when the public is not considered scientifically `expert'. Even if the notion of `expertise' is broadened to deal with this problem, this does not ensure truly `public'—i.e. lay—involvement, because lay ideas are still not included but are discounted as `non-scientific'. Further, emphasis on the scientific and environmental education of the general public will not guarantee policy implementation by individuals. Therefore, if we wish to design environmental policy that can be successfully implemented, we must consider other ways in which people relate to their environments as well as through scientific mediation—ways in which people `understand' their environments through culture, morality and social interaction—and build these into environmental policy.

Download Full-text