Correction to: Scientific communication and vaccine hesitation: an analysis of the editorial line of a great Brazilian newspaper

The text critically examines the anti-vaccine editorial line adopted by “Gazeta do Povo”, one of Brazil’s leading newspapers, and its possible repercussions on vaccine hesitancy in the country. By analyzing headlines published over the course of a year, a trend of misinformation and sensationalism was found, addressing supposed or insignificant risks in relation to COVID-19 vaccines. A structured qualitative document analysis was conducted, based on the systematic retrieval of all vaccine-related headlines published by the newspaper between December 2022 and December 2023. Headlines were collected using predefined search terms relevant to COVID-19 vaccination and assessed according to their scientific accuracy and potential to induce vaccine hesitancy, following WHO and CDC communication guidelines. The analysis highlights how such news, often contradictory to scientific knowledge, can negatively influence the decision-making of citizens concerned about their health and that of their children. The article also highlights the responsibility of the press in disseminating reliable information, as well as the need for effective reactions to the anti-vaccine movement and scientific denialism in Brazil and globally.

It has been a few months since the first batch of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines arrived in the Kurdistan region, and the priority was given to health workers at the forefront of the treatment of COVID-19 patients. The rollout is slow, and there is little evidence to suggest that the whole Kurdistan region is vaccinated anytime soon. This comprehensive and national survey was conducted to investigate the perception of the people of the Kurdistan region towards COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy. An adjusted valid and dependable questionnaire was deployed via social media platforms (Facebook and Viber) to invite participants aged 18 and over from the residents of the four provinces of the Kurdistan region. A total of 450 individuals participated in this study. The majority of the participants were male (54.4%) who were aged 26-40 years with bachelor's degrees (44.3%). Moreover, they were full-time employees (37.8%) with a household income of 0-$5,000 (53.3%). They were the residence of urban regions (81.9%) and Sulaymaniyah province (87.7%). On the probability of getting a COVID-19 vaccine shot, the responses were very likely (26.7%), somewhat likely (24.9%), not likely (20%), and definitely not (28.4%). The vaccine hesitancy prevalence was high among individuals aged 26-40, students with low incomes, unemployed, and those from the suburban areas, while respondents with the least perceived threat to get infected with the COVID-19 in the next year had the highest level of vaccine hesitancy. It is evident that vaccine hesitancy is high, and multiple strategies across the Kurdistan region needed to be implemented to encourage people to get vaccinated; therefore, scientific communication is necessary with the help of mass media.

In the current COVID-19 global health crisis, discussions of vaccine safety and hesitancy are being brought to light, as they were during many historical pandemics. In order to suggest effective public health interventions, it is important to examine the historically conventional interventions implemented during previous pandemics. In this review, the governmental role and communication strategies during the smallpox and the measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine hesitancies are compared. Specifically, it assesses how these factors may have contributed to vaccine hesitancy and the difference in outcomes. This discussion emphasizes the importance of effective science communication and public health interventions in the prevention and eradication of diseases.

PurposeThere is a great potential in pulling together science communication and strategic communication, especially given how the former has gained importance in organizational contexts. Strategic communication, including rhetorical theory, can offer insights that are invaluable to understand the contests over what “truth” is and how different political perspectives influence such debates. The case of vaccine hesitancy is used as an illustration of the challenges posed to organizations and organizational communication around science-related issues today. There is a need to understand the audience in order to build credibility, or ethos, while at the same time recognizing the contingent and situational character of this endeavor.FindingsRhetoric and strategic communication can offer science communication the essential knowledge to strengthen credibility. While much attention has been geared toward understanding the audience, strategic communication and rhetoric in particular go further and also spell out the strategic implications for communication that is intended to strengthen credibility. Additionally, rhetoric alerts us to how credibility, or ethos, is not a fixed quality in a sender or a text but is situational and constantly negotiated. While the case of vaccine hesitancy and health authorities is used as an illustration, all organizations share the need to somehow have others believe in what they are saying. The toolboxes of strategic communication and rhetoric hold a number of insights and approaches that could benefit science communication.Originality/valueThe study pulls together insights from rhetoric and strategic communication that can inform science communication.

Explores how scientific meaning and decision-making are filtered through the stories we tell about science and through our social, cultural, and personal identities. Focusing on mothers as a prominent and important identity in science communication, this Element explores both the obstacles and the opportunities for public engagement with scientific topics. After providing an overview of the nexus of science communication, stories, and identities, the author applies key insights from these topics to the case study of motherhood in the climate change and vaccination controversies. They then offer science communication strategies based on these insights for science communicators, mothers, and other caregivers. This analysis is original research that demonstrates the value of understanding stories and identities in mobilizing mothers for both science skepticism and science advocacy.

Misinformation regarding vaccine science decreased the receptiveness to COVID-19 vaccines, exacerbating the negative effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on society. To mitigate the negative societal impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, impactful and creative science communication was needed, yet little research has explored how to encourage COVID-19 vaccine acceptance and address misconceptions held by non-Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics majors (referred to as non-majors). We have previously demonstrated that including expert guest lectures in the vaccine module in the non-major introductory biology course helps combat students' vaccine hesitancy. In the present study, we further address how learning about vaccines impacts student knowledge and impressions of the COVID-19 vaccines through a podcast assignment. As a part of this assignment, non-majors created podcasts to address COVID-19 vaccine misconceptions of their choice. We coded pre and post, open-ended essay reflections (n = 40) to assess non-majors' knowledge and impressions of the COVID-19 vaccines. Non-majors' impressions of the vaccines improved following the podcast assignment with more than three times as many students reporting a positive view of the assignment than negative views. Notably, eight of the nine interviewed students still ended the course with misconceptions about the COVID-19 vaccines, such as the vaccines being unnecessary or causing fertility issues. In a post semi-structured interview following this assignment, students (n = 7) discussed the impact of looking into the specific misconceptions related to COVID-19 vaccines themselves, including improved science communication skills and understanding of different perspectives. Thus, podcasts can provide opportunities for students to improve engagement in valuable societal topics like vaccine literacy in the non-majors classroom.

Impact of COVID-19 health information sources on student vaccine hesitancy

List of figures List of tables List of contributors Introduction: Sociocultural approaches to language and science David R. Gruber and Lynda C. Olman PART I History and Development of Language and Science Language and Science from a Rhetorical Perspective Leah Ceccarelli Social semiotic approaches to language in science: A history of engagement with language & science Kimberly Gomez Public Understanding Of Science: Popularisation, Perceptions and Publics Jenni Metcalf and Michelle Riedlinger Science, journalism, and the language of (un)certainty: A review of science journalists' use of language in reports on science Lars Guenther and Antonia Weber Language and Science in Science and Technology Studies Sheila Jasanoff PART II Language and Power Language, Power and Public Engagement in Science Melanie Smallman Rhetoric's Materialist Traditions and the Shifting Terrain of Economic Agency Catherine Chaput Accounting for 'Genetics' and 'Race' Requires a Use-Focused Theory of Language Celeste Condit Encomium of the Harlot, or, a Rhetoric of Refusal Davi Thornton Gender and the Language of Science: The Case of CRISPR Jordynn Jack PART III Language and Pedagogy Rhetorical Invention and Visual Rhetoric: Toward a Multimodal Pedagogy Of Scientific Writing Molly Hartzog Use of Personal Pronouns in Science Laboratory Reports Jean Parkinson Dialogic Approaches to Supporting Argumentation in the Elementary Science Classroom Emily Reigh and Jonathan Osborn The 'objective truths' of the classroom: Using Foucault and discourse analysis to unpack structuring concepts in science and mathematics education Anna Llewellyn Iterative language pedagogy for science writing: Discovering the language of Architectural Engineering Maria Freddi PART IV Language and Materiality Of Matter And Money: Material-Semiotic Methods For The Study Of Science And Language S. Scott Graham Anatomical Presencing:Visualisation, Model-Making, and Embodied Interaction in a Language-Rich Space T. Kenny Fountain Narrative, Drama, and Science communication Emma Weitkamp Language, Materiality, and Emotions in Science Learning Settings Elizabeth Hufnagel The Materialist Rhetoric about SARS Sequelae in China: Networked Risk Communication, Social Justice, and Immaterial Labor Huiling Ding PART V Language and Public Engagement Exploring Public Engagement in Environmental Rhetoric Aimee Roundtree Heuristics for Communicating Science, Risk, and Crisis: Encouraging Guided Inquiry in Challenging Rhetorical Situations Katherine E. Rowan and Andrew S. Pyle When Expertises Clash: (Topic) Modeling Stasis about Complex Issues Across Large Discursive Corpora Zoltan Majdik Blasting for Science: Rhetorical Antidotes to Anti-vax Discourse in the Italian Public Sphere Pamela Pietrucci Exploring Conversations about Science in New Media Ashley Rose Mehlenbacher PART VI Futures for Language and Science Rhetorical Futures For The Study Of Language and Science: Theorizing Interpublics In/For Healthcare Jennifer Malkowski Ecologies Of Genres And An Ecology Of Languages Of Science: Current And Future Debates Carmen Perez-Llantada Becoming the Other: The Body in Translation Helene Mialet Science Communication on Social Media: Current Trends, Future Challenges Miguel Alcibar Language and Science: Emerging Themes in Public Science Communication Sarah R. Davies Bibliography Index

Doing science" system refers to the set of processes, institutions, practices, and actors involved in the production, validation, and dissemination of scientific knowledge.It includes the entire process, from hypothesizing research questions to implementing its results in society.Scientific dissemination is increasingly recognized as an essential component of this system.Such appreciation is partially due to the so-called "infodemic", boosted during the COVID-19 pandemic, even in environments dedicated to scientific communication.In this context, the excess of information becomes noise, generating discredit for science and scientists, with deleterious effects on population health.The drop in vaccination coverage, for example, was identified in 2019 as one of the 10 issues to be faced in the context of global health 1 .Such decline was generated and intensified by anti-vaccine movements, which fuel concerns about vaccination safety and efficacy, and create a false contradiction between individual freedom and the collective good 2 .The pandemic has highlighted the urgency of strengthening science divulgation , aiming at making research results accessible, especially in face of anti-science movements 3 .Journals play a fundamental role in communicating the science being produced.We do not refer to predatory journals, which publish under payment, regardless of the data reliability.Peer review is still the best evaluation method, even considering its limitations 4,5 .This capital forms the foundation for scientific dissemination of journals, which is the cornerstone of CSP's proposal.Thus, CSP aligns itself with the Oswaldo Cruz Foundation's Scientific Dissemination Policy 6 , that emphasizes the importance of sharing scientific knowledge and of its incorporation by society, which by definition should have the right to access such knowledge.This policy is in line with open science practices: both share the goal of democratizing knowledge and expanding access to information.While open access to knowledge is concerned with ensuring infrastructure and spreading the values of free access 7 , scientific communication is responsible for communicating and translating such knowledge, contributing to a more informed and engaged society.Together, they reinforce the role of science as a noncommercial public good, a principle that guides CSP's editorial policy.

Language, trust, and the polio endgame: words matter in vaccine communication.

Evidence-Based Strategies for Clinical Organizations to Address COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy

Background In the first decades of the 19th century, vaccination was a brand-new innovation in Lombardy, Northern Italy. Yet, anti-smallpox vaccination campaigns were successfully carried out despite organisational and communication obstacles. By establishing a parallel with current COVID-19 vaccinations, we aimed to study how laws were enforced for outbreak control through vaccination services and to evaluate how health authorities handled public communication on vaccination. Methods A systematic search of original documents was conducted at the State Archives of Pavia and Milan, that of the City of Pavia and the Museum for the History of Pavia University. The search timeframe was between 1797 and 1830. Results Luigi Sacco introduced anti-smallpox vaccination in Lombardy in 1801 (1769-1836). He inoculated a million and a half citizens with his team in seven years. Student of Johann Peter Frank, generally known as one of the founders of modern Hygiene, Sacco was appointed General Director of Vaccination for the Kingdom of Italy and designed vaccination campaigns. Church parishes acted as organisational units: they were assigned to a vaccinating doctor, and priests were asked to provide a register of newborns to plan infant immunisation sessions. Authorities adopted a mixed approach towards vaccination mandates: these were formally effective but not imposed with coercion. When new outbreaks exploded, extraordinary vaccinations were implemented with easier compliance than in the absence of contagion. Great attention was paid to effective communication: priests were involved in scientific divulgation and vaccination promotion. Of note is the sermon written by Sacco impersonating an imaginary bishop from the city of Goldstadt who condemned vaccine refusal. Conclusions 19th-century public health officials and authorities dealt with the same issues we face nowadays: effective organisation of vaccination services, vaccine hesitancy and related mandates, and communication strategies. Key messages • To ensure broad vaccination coverage, the most dependable structure consists of locally based and socially integrated organisational units, such as districts. • Effective vaccination coverage was achieved through targeted communication, a gentle approach to mandatory vaccinations, and focusing efforts during epidemic periods.

The notion of an ‘ignorant public’ is attributed in outbreak scenarios through vaccination narratives that are institutionally reinforced by governments and the media across different contexts. The ignorant public narrative is a discursive shift that reduces public concerns about vaccines to a lack of knowledge, obscuring how these concerns are indicative of mistrust and anxiety or efforts to counter the dominance of acceptable and legitimate knowledge. This narrative risks a deflection of challenges in the structural determinants of vaccine uptake and depoliticise rumours and mistrust that arise during vaccination campaigns. Examples from Sierra Leone, Uganda, and India show how ‘ignorant public’ framings are used as explanation for vaccine hesitancy through assigned roles for institutions and publics, and the consequences this narrative has for vaccination encounters. These examples are based on ethnographic fieldwork and media analysis carried out before, during, and after outbreaks, of newly introduced vaccines for both human and animal health. Drawing on science communication and development studies, we show how this narrative then positions governmental concern about vaccine hesitancy as being a (largely) imagined issue of public ignorance. We argue that when institutions tasked with strengthening vaccine uptake see public ignorance as the key problem, this can obscure other problems, such as competing interests and experiences, and also minority group treatment. As a result, public governance is rationalised by assigning the ignorance label to certain public groups that stand in contrast to scientific and government expertise, and so accountability for low vaccine uptake is transferred onto the public.

The morbidity and mortality from COVID-19 infection are higher in pregnant women compared to their nonpregnant counterparts. As real-world evidence accumulates demonstrating there is no increased risk of adverse maternal and neonatal outcomes associated with COVID-19 vaccination during pregnancy, guidelines have evolved from a case-by-case benefit-risk decision through to clear recommendation in April 2021 for COVID-19 vaccination in pregnancy. However, vaccine hesitancy is a barrier to uptake, especially among the younger population and individuals of ethnic minority backgrounds; pregnant women have additional concerns. Trust in the importance and effectiveness of the vaccine, trust in public health agencies and science, together with good communication methods regarding the safety of COVID-19 vaccines are strong factors for vaccination acceptance in pregnancy. Lack of trust in the health system was worsened by initial knowledge gaps in the information provided about COVID-19 infection and the safety and immunogenicity of COVID-19 vaccines. This was exacerbated by access to incorrect information and misinformation to fill in those knowledge gaps, especially with the increased use of social media. To provide advice and reassurance on COVID-19 vaccine safety to pregnant women, healthcare professionals involved in their care should have the knowledge and skills to provide risk-benefit communication and would benefit from access to training in science communication. Clinical pharmacologists have the expertise to appraise and synthesize emerging pharmacovigilance data, which can inform and support risk-benefit communication by other clinicians. Information should be strategically directed at individual audiences, taking their perspectives and foundational belief systems into consideration.

On August 7-9, 2024, the second annual dengue "endgame" summit was held in Syracuse, NY, hosted by the Global Health Institute at SUNY Upstate Medical University. The meeting brought together attendees from around the world, with talks spanning healthcare, government control programs, basic research, and medical countermeasure development efforts. The summit goal was to work toward a better understanding of what dengue control could look like and the steps required to reach such a goal. The objectives of the meeting were to discuss the current global state of dengue, what dengue "control" might look like, and to discuss actionable pathways for achieving dengue control. Topics covered throughout the meeting included DENV immunity and pathogenesis, challenges in countermeasure development, innovative vector control strategies, dengue diagnostics, addressing challenges in science communication, and vaccine hesitancy. Several fundamental knowledge gaps were repeatedly highlighted by the summit attendees and were cited as critical barriers to the development, deployment, and evaluation of effective dengue countermeasures. These gaps include (1) the lack of a broadly applicable immunologic biomarker/correlate of DENV immunity and (2) the lack of universally accepted/applicable metrics for quantifying dengue severity in the setting of countermeasure evaluations. In addition, the lack of clear and consistent international leadership in the global dengue control effort was cited as a barrier to widespread and synergistic research and countermeasure development/deployment activities. Despite these persistent roadblocks, summit attendees expressed optimism that holistic and multi-tiered approaches-incorporating optimal use of existing and nascent countermeasure technologies deployed in collaboration with local communities-could be effective in progressing toward dengue control.