Julia Brown, University of California, San Francisco
In the absence of clear-cut regulation, who should decide on where and how a technology that could change the course of human health should be applied?
Whether sharing online about health topics or chatting about the weather, you communicate about science. Borrowing a tactic from antiscience advocates can help make your stories more persuasive.
Research reveals lots of reasons why well-meaning attempts to inform, persuade or correct misinformation go awry. It also identifies ways to avoid these communication backfires.
This bias in science journalism seems not to be due only to pragmatic concerns about time zones or the language spoken in the country where the scientist is based.
Eclipses have inspired myths, predictions and scientific discoveries. The total solar eclipse occurring on April 8 provides a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to engage with science and the cosmos.
Researchers want real-world impact. Lawmakers want programs that work. The public wants to benefit from taxpayer-funded research. Building a bridge from academia to legislatures is key to all three.
The logic of shared birthdays is stranger than you might think, but learning to understand counter-intuitive mathematics is key to seeing the world clearly.
Studies show that health misinformation on social media has led to fewer people getting vaccinated and more lives lost to COVID-19 and other life-threatening diseases.
Conversations about scientific research and technological innovations allow the public to build trust with experts, and understand the impacts on everyday lives.
A calm voice, a trusted expert, devoted teacher. Epidemiologist Professor Mary-Louise McLaws was passionate about engaging with the mainstream media and communicating what she knew.