Notes
1 Horst W. J. Rittel and Melvin M. Webber, “Dilemmas in a General Theory of Planning,” Policy Sciences, 4, 1973, pp. 155-169.
2 “Genome Editing: Science, Ethics, and Public Engagement,” editorial, The Lancet, 390(10095), 2017, p. 625.
3 J. Robert Oppenheimer, “Physics in the Contemporary World,” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 4, no. 3, 1948, pp. 65-68.
4 Alan I. Leshner, “Public Engagement with Science,” Science, 299 (5609), 2003, p. 977.
5 Jennifer A. Doudna and Samuel H. Sternberg, A Crack in Creation: Gene Editing and the Unthinkable Power to Control Evolution, New York: Houghton Mifflin, 2017.
6 Dietram A. Scheufele, Michael A. Xenos, Emily L. Howell, Kathleen M. Rose, Dominque Brossard, and Bruce W. Hardy, “U.S. Attitudes on Human Genome Editing,” Science, 357 (6351), 2017, pp. 553-554.
7 Robert D. Putnam, Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community, New York: Simon & Schuster, 2000.
8 Pew Research Center, “A Wider Ideological Gap Between More and Less Educated Adults,” Pew Research Center, April 16, 2016.
9 Ziva Kunda, “The Case for Motivated Reasoning,” Psychological Bulletin, 108, no. 3, 1990, pp. 480-498.
10 Elisa Shearer and Jeffrey Gottfried, “News Use Across Social Media Platforms 2017,” Pew Research Center, September 7, 2017.
11 Sara K. Yeo, Michael A. Xenos, Dominique Brossard, and Dietram A. Scheufele, “Selecting Our Own Science: How Communication Contexts and Individual Traits Shape Information Seeking,” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 658, no. 1, 2015, pp. 172-191.
12 Jonathan A. Garlick and Peter Levine, “Where Civics Meets Science: Building Science for the Public Good through Civic Science,” Oral Diseases, 23, no. 6, 2017, pp.692-696.
13 National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, Communicating Science Effectively: A Research Agenda, Washington, D.C: National Academies Press, 126, 2016.
14 Brendan Nyhan, Jason Reifler, Sean Richey, and Gary L. Freed, “Effective Messages in Vaccine Promotion: A Randomized Trial,” Pediatrics, 133, no. 4, 2014, pp.e835-e842.
15 Hans P. Peters, Dominique Brossard, Suzanne de CheveignО, Sharon Dunwoody, Monika Kallfass, Steve Miller, and Shoji Tsuchida, “Interactions with the Mass Media,” Science Communication, Science, 321 (5886), 2008, pp. 204-205.
16 Elizabeth A. Corley, Youngjae Kim, and Dietram A. Scheufele, “Leading U.S. Nanoscientists’ Perceptions About Media Coverage and the Public Communication of Scientific Research Findings,” Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 13, no. 12, 2011, pp.7041-7055.
17 Nick Roll, “Science’s Communication Problem,” Inside Higher Education, July 13, 2017.
18 Brad Jones, “CRISPR Co-Discoverer: “I’ve Never Seen Science Move at the Pace It’s Moving Now,” Futurism, 2017.
19 William S. Bainbridge and Mihail C. Roco, eds., Managing Nano-Bio-Info-Cogno Innovations: Converging Technologies in Society, Springer: Dordrecht, the Netherlands, 2006, pp. 255-278.
20 John H. Falk and Lynn D. Dierking, “The 95 Percent Solution: School Is Not Where Most Americans Learn Most of Their Science,” American Scientist, 98, no. 6, 2010, pp. 486–493.
21 See Dietram A. Scheufele, “Communicating Science in Social Settings,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110 (Supplement 3), 2013, pp. 14040-14047; and Cary Funk and Brian Kennedy, “Public Confidence in Scientists Has Remained Stable for Decades,” Pew Research Center, 2017.
22 George Lakoff and Mark Johnson, Metaphors We Live By, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1981.
23 Erving Goffman, Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience, New York City: Harper & Row, 1974.
24 Shanto Iyengar, Is Anyone Responsible? How Television Frames Political Issues, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1991.
25 Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky, “Choices, Values, and Frames,” American Psychologist, 39, no. 4, 1984, pp. 341-350.
26 Dietram A. Scheufele, “Framing as a Theory of Media Effects,” Journal of Communication, 49, no. 1, 1999, pp. 103-122.
27 Dietram A. Scheufele and Davide Tewksbury, “Framing, agenda setting, and priming: The evolution of three media effects models,” Journal of Communication, 57, no. 1, 2007, pp. 9-20.
28 “Doron Weber: The Story of Science,” interview by Alexander Heffner, “The Open Mind,” WNET, May 13, 2017.
29 Kwame Anthony Appiah, Lines of Descent: W.E.B. Du Bois and the Emergence of Identity, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2014.
30 Vicki S. Freimuth, Sandra C. Quinn, Stephan B. Thomas, Cole Galen, Eric Zook, and Ted Duncan, “African Americans’ Views on Research and the Tuskegee Syphilis Study,” Social Science & Medicine, 52, no. 5, 2001, pp. 797-808.
Elizabeth Good Christopherson is
president and CEO of the Rita Allen Foundation,
a venture philanthropy organization
that enables early-career biomedical scholars
to do pioneering research, seeds innovative
approaches to fostering informed civic engagement,
and develops knowledge and networks
to build the effectiveness of the philanthropic
sector. Civic science is a growing area of research,
investment, and coalition-building for
the foundation.
Dietram A. Scheufele is the John E. Ross
Professor in science communication and Vilas
Distinguished Achievement Professor at the
University of Wisconsin-Madison and in the
Morgridge Institute for Research. His research
deals with the interface of media, policy, and
public opinion. He vice-chaired the National
Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and
Medicine committee that recently issued the
report “Communicating Science Effectively: A
Research Agenda.”
Brooke Smith is the director of public
engagement at The Kavli Foundation, which is
dedicated to advancing science for the benefit
of humanity, promoting public understanding
of scientific research, and supporting scientists
and their work. From 2005 to 2016, she was
the executive director of COMPASS, a leading
science communication nonprofit.
