The science of science communication

Abstract

We all need science for making effective decisions in our lives. Are the expected benefits of a medical procedure worth its risks? Does it make sense to rebuild homes along the seashore after a hurricane? How good are the predictions for storm surges? Should we sign a lease for hydrofracking on our property? What are the risks to our drinking water? Science is, potentially, the best source for the evidence needed to answer these questions. Realizing that potential will require effective two-way communication with those whom science hopes to serve–so that it produces relevant information and conveys it in a credible, comprehensible form. This special issue of PNAS presents scientific foundations for that communication. Its contributions recognize that communication about science does not occur in a vacuum. At the individual level, its success depends on the beliefs that individuals bring to it, such that some scientific results are difficult to comprehend whereas others go without saying. In some cases, communication just needs to fill the gaps in laypeople’s mental models. In other cases, it needs to overcome misconceptions, sometimes the product of clumsy communication, sometimes the result of effective disinformation campaigns. Learning what laypeople know and need to know requires empirical research. At the social level, the success of scientists’ communication depends on their awareness of the role that their work plays in the public discourse. Although scientists may know more than anyone about the facts and uncertainties, applications of that science can raise complex ethical, legal, and social questions, regarding which reasonable people may disagree. As a result, if scientists want to be effective in their … [↵][1]1To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: baruch{at}cmu.edu. [1]: #xref-corresp-1-1