Stories in the media are often the first or even the only way that people hear about science and medical news. So we need to get the reporting right.
from www.shutterstock.com
Health reporting requires asking the right questions and doing quality research. But specialist skills are also handy, especially when it comes to knowing the language and processes of science.
There are many considerations that go into buying food, and science is just one.
Shutterstock
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.
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.
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.
Taking stock of what we know works… or not.
TV head image via www.shutterstock.com.
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?
When scientists engage local communities in dialogue about their research, both sides benefit.
Simon Elwin/Namibian Dolphin Project Education Day 2015
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.
There’s more to it than political beliefs.
Buttons image via www.shutterstock.com.
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.
Ben Goldacre says that greater transparency on research findings could increase the public’s faith in essential medicines.
Shutterstock
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.
There’s growing pressure for academics to get outside their comfort zones and to share their research with the broader public.
campus via www.shutterstock.com
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.
Shouting past each other online doesn’t help.
Megaphones image via www.shutterstock.com.
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.
Scientists themselves may be the key to finding the right balance.
Scales image via www.shutterstock.com.
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.
Scientists need to learn how to hit other communication goals.
Talking image via www.shutterstock.com.
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.
#FoundThem.
ESO/José Francisco Salgado (josefrancisco.org)