Abstract

Scientists who perform environmental research on policy-relevant topics face challenges when communicating about how values may have influenced their research. This study examines how citizens view scientists who publicly acknowledge values. Specifically, we investigate whether it matters: if citizens share or oppose a scientist’s values, if a scientist’s conclusions seem contrary to or consistent with the scientist’s values, and if a scientist is assessing the state of the science or making a policy recommendation. We conducted two 3x2 factorial design online experiments. Experiment 1 featured a hypothetical scientist assessing the state of the science on the public-health effects of exposure to Bisphenol A (BPA), and Experiment 2 featured a scientist making a policy recommendation on use of BPA. We manipulated whether or not the scientist expressed values and whether the scientist’s conclusion appeared contrary to or consistent with the scientist’s values, and we accounted for whether or not subjects’ values aligned with the scientist’s values. We analyzed our data with ordinary least squares (OLS) regression techniques. Our results provide at least preliminary evidence that acknowledging values may reduce the perceived credibility of scientists within the general public, but this effect differs depending on whether scientists and citizens share values, whether scientists draw conclusions that run contrary to their values, and whether scientists make policy recommendations.

Highlights

  • Scientists frequently are asked to communicate with policy makers, journalists, and members of the general public on important environmental issues such as climate change, genetically engineered crops, food safety and nutrition, hydraulic fracturing, and pesticide safety

  • Our experiments focus on the health risks of Bisphenol A (BPA), an endocrine-disrupting compound that has come under scrutiny because of its potential to interfere with hormonal activity in the bodies of humans and other species

  • In the two overall regression models with only additive effects, subjects exposed to a scientist mentioning either economic growth values or public health values report lesser positive affect toward and perceived trust in the scientist than do subjects exposed to a scientist mentioning no values

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Scientists frequently are asked to communicate with policy makers, journalists, and members of the general public on important environmental issues such as climate change, genetically engineered crops, food safety and nutrition, hydraulic fracturing, and pesticide safety. One of the major justifications for federal investment in scientific research is to provide the information our society needs to make well-informed decisions about these issues. Scientists face significant challenges when determining how to communicate effectively and ethically with different audiences. They must decide how best to maintain their objectivity while providing information that is relevant and accessible to their audiences [1,2,3].

Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call