Informing people about genetically modified food means more than dumping more facts on them.
Laser-like focus on a tiny, unimportant detail can mean you miss the gorilla in the room – a tactic climate change deniers use to cast doubt on the science.
The Conversation asked eight authors from across its sections to tell us about their favourite podcasts – and why you should tune in.
Research comes with risk and uncertainty so getting the right message across to the people who matter can be a challenge for scientists. A new plan out today hopes to change that.
There's never been greater need for the study of what we don't know, and why we're not supposed to know it.
Quirks of human psychology can pose problems for science communicators trying to cover controversial topics. Recognizing what cognitive science knows about how we deal with new information could help.
Now that we're in a post-truth world, a timely report from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine highlights evidence for what works and what doesn't when talking about science.
Changes to the ABC's science show Catalyst follow recent criticism of some of its journalism. But will the new format still give a voice to Australian science, or will some issues lose out?
There is broad acknowledgement that the way science is taught and practised in Africa is not socially inclusive.
The scientific community enjoys one of the highest levels of trust among American institutions. But engaging in the political arena during a contentious election season comes with dangers.
Social scientists investigate when and why liberals and conservatives mistrust science. The apparent split may be more about cultural and personal beliefs than feelings about science itself.
Bad Pharma author Ben Goldacre about how bad research hurts us all.
The Conversation, CC BY36.4 MB (download)
Darren Saunders speaks with Bad Pharma author Ben Goldacre about bad medical research reporting, and how greater transparency in research practices could improve public trust in science and medicine.
Academics are getting out of touch with the rest of society. This helps explains the sorry state of our public discourse on science.
There is mounting evidence to show scientists and researchers why public engagement is worth their while.
Science communication has grown in leaps and bounds over the past 60 years. It plays a crucial role in democratising science and making it less mysterious.
Social media is a great way to spread science information, fast. But the online echo chamber isn't always good at separating what's valid from what's not, and being prolific doesn't make you right.
The public loses when their only choices are inaccessible, impenetrable journal articles or overhyped click-bait about science. Scientists themselves need to step up and help bridge the divide.
Broader goals like building trust, fostering excitement about science and influencing policy decisions don't necessarily just fall into place when researchers focus only on describing their work.
In a world of blogs, twitter and open data, scientists need to think again about how they'd communicate a discovery of alien life.
A recent closed meeting about building synthetic genomes raised suspicions about just what scientists were planning, away from the public eye.