National Academies Press: OpenBook

Communicating Science Effectively: A Research Agenda (2017)

Chapter: Appendix A: Agendas of Public Meetings

« Previous: References
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Agendas of Public Meetings." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Communicating Science Effectively: A Research Agenda. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23674.
×

Appendix A

Agendas of Public Meetings

Committee on the Science of Science Communication: A Research Agenda
Meeting #1

December 17-18, 2015

Keck Center, Room 103
500 Fifth Street, NW
Washington, D.C.

AGENDA

OPEN SESSION

9:00 Statement of Task: Sponsor Perspectives
9:00 Welcome and Introductions
Alan Leshner, Committee Chair
9:05 Introduction to the Statement of Task
Alan Leshner
9:10 Elizabeth Christopherson, Rita Allen Foundation
Paul Hanle, Climate Central
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Agendas of Public Meetings." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Communicating Science Effectively: A Research Agenda. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23674.
×
9:20 Chad English, Packard Foundation
9:30 Q&A and Discussion with Committee Members
Moderator: Alan Leshner
9:45 Practitioner Perspectives
Guiding questions: What are the main challenges of communicating science for any topic; what are additional challenges of communicating science on topics that have become contentious? What are promising approaches or practices for addressing communication challenges; what is the evidence? What needs to be better understood to communicate effectively about science on important societal issues?
Moderator: Alan Leshner, Committee Chair
Each presenter will have 25 minutes (15 minutes followed by 10 minutes of Q&A), with time for general discussion.
Engaging the Public
9:45 Radiation Risk
Jerrold Bushberg, University of California, Davis School of Medicine, and National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements
10:10 Food Safety and Nutrition
Joe Levitt, Hogan Lovells
10:35 General Discussion
Media
10:55 Cornelia Dean, The New York Times, and Brown University
11:20 Richard Harris, National Public Radio
11:45 General Discussion
Supports for Engagement
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Agendas of Public Meetings." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Communicating Science Effectively: A Research Agenda. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23674.
×
12:05 Brooke Smith, COMPASS
12:30 Lunch (served in the meeting room)
1:30 Perspectives from Decision Science, Political Science, and Science in Society
Guiding questions: What are the main challenges of communicating science for any topic; what are additional challenges of communicating science on topics that have become contentious? What are promising approaches or practices for addressing communication challenges; what is the evidence? What needs to be better understood to communicate effectively about science related to important societal issues?
Moderator: Alan Leshner, Committee Chair
1:30 Baruch Fischhoff, Carnegie Mellon University
1:45 Q &A
2:00 Bruce Lewenstein, Cornell University
2:15 Q&A
2:30 Arthur (Skip) Lupia, University of Michigan
2:45 Q&A
3:00 General Discussion
3:45 Break
Adjourn Open Session
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Agendas of Public Meetings." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Communicating Science Effectively: A Research Agenda. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23674.
×

Committee on the Science of Science Communication: A Research Agenda
Meeting #2

February 24-25, 2016

Keck Center, Room 201
500 5th Street, NW
Washington, DC 20001

AGENDA

Wednesday. February 24, 2016

OPEN SESSION

10:15 Public Controversies Involving Science

Much of the available literature related to the communication of science on important societal issues pertains to a single issue area, such as climate change, vaccination, obesity, hydraulic fracturing, nuclear energy, genetically modified organisms, and so on. This panel is part of a larger effort of the committee to gather information across a set of controversies that have involved science in public decisions and debates. Each speaker has been asked to respond to questions below to address the charge:

  • What are the main controversies and what is the role of science? What factors (i.e., psychological social, cultural, political, economic, media-related, science-related, communication-related, or other contextual factors) affect how the relevant science is understood, perceived and used (i.e., has affected decisions and other behaviors?)
  • What has been learned that could apply to other controversies about (1) practices for communicating science to prevent controversy and (2) practices that are successful or not successful for communicating science in the midst of controversy?
  • What are important and empirically researchable questions to inform approaches to communicating science related to controversial societal issues?
10:15 Welcome and introductions, Alan Leshner, Committee Chair
Each presentation will be followed by brief clarifying Q&A, followed by discussion
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Agendas of Public Meetings." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Communicating Science Effectively: A Research Agenda. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23674.
×
10:20 Seth Mnookin, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
10:40 Noel Brewer, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
11:00 Ed Maibach, George Mason University
11:20 Discussion
11:45 Lunch

Thursday, February 25, 2016

OPEN SESSION

9:05 Communicating Science for Policy Related to Contentious Societal Issues

Much has been written about communicating science for policy. A lot of theorizing, analysis, and advice have been offered, but less research is available to understand how science is communicated and used and how to communicate effectively in policy contexts to support the use of research. The purpose of this panel is to aid the committee in determining what is most important to understand through research about communicating science for policy that pertains to societal issues and decisions that are controversial in the public sphere. In particular:

  • Does effective science communication matter for science policy, and if so, how does it matter?
  • What are the audiences for science in the policy arena and how should communication differ across them?
  • What are trusted sources of information about science for policy and what makes them trustworthy?
  • What are the limits of science evidence in the policy arena?
  • What are the most important challenges for communicating science related to controversial issues?
  • Are there examples of successful communication of science, and examples of approaches that were not successful?
  • How should approaches to communicating science differ depending on whether the issue is high in public attention and political sensitivity?
9:05 Welcome and introductions, Alan Leshner, Committee Chair
Each presenter will provide opening remarks followed by discussion
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Agendas of Public Meetings." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Communicating Science Effectively: A Research Agenda. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23674.
×
9:10 Rick Spinrad, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
9:20 Bob Inglis, RepublicEn
9:30 Brian Baird, 4Pir2 Communications
9:40 Daniel Sarewitz, Arizona State University
9:50 Rush Holt, American Association for the Advancement of Science
10:00 Discussion
10:45 Break
11:00 Panel: Issues of Social Media and Social Networks for the Communication of Science Related to Contentious Societal Issues

Science communication through social media is increasing rapidly, and yet remains poorly understood. Over the past few years, social media platforms—blogging and Twitter in particular—have provided scientists and other communicators of science new ways of connecting with audiences, having a voice, and directly addressing controversial issues. Given the increasing accessibility, reach, and growth in the use of social media for science communication, this panel brings together researchers of social media, social networks and science communicators to discuss the following questions:

  • What is known from research about uses of social media and social networks for science communication related to important societal issues?
  • What is likely to be effective or not effective? What is the evidence from the research and from practitioner perspectives?
  • What are the roles of social media and social networks related to controversial societal issues such as climate change, GMOs, and vaccines?
  • What are important directions for research related to social media and social networks for science communication and for assessing effectiveness and societal impact?
11:05 Dominique Brossard, University of Wisconsin–Madison
11:20 Noshir Contractor, Northwestern University
11:35 Hilda Bastian, National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI), National Institutes of Health
11:50 Discussion
12:15 Lunch (informal discussion continues)
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Agendas of Public Meetings." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Communicating Science Effectively: A Research Agenda. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23674.
×
Page 125
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Agendas of Public Meetings." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Communicating Science Effectively: A Research Agenda. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23674.
×
Page 126
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Agendas of Public Meetings." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Communicating Science Effectively: A Research Agenda. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23674.
×
Page 127
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Agendas of Public Meetings." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Communicating Science Effectively: A Research Agenda. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23674.
×
Page 128
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Agendas of Public Meetings." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Communicating Science Effectively: A Research Agenda. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23674.
×
Page 129
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Agendas of Public Meetings." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Communicating Science Effectively: A Research Agenda. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23674.
×
Page 130
Next: Appendix B: Biographical Sketches of Committee Members and Staff »
Communicating Science Effectively: A Research Agenda Get This Book
×
Buy Paperback | $48.00 Buy Ebook | $38.99
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

Science and technology are embedded in virtually every aspect of modern life. As a result, people face an increasing need to integrate information from science with their personal values and other considerations as they make important life decisions about medical care, the safety of foods, what to do about climate change, and many other issues. Communicating science effectively, however, is a complex task and an acquired skill. Moreover, the approaches to communicating science that will be most effective for specific audiences and circumstances are not obvious. Fortunately, there is an expanding science base from diverse disciplines that can support science communicators in making these determinations.

Communicating Science Effectively offers a research agenda for science communicators and researchers seeking to apply this research and fill gaps in knowledge about how to communicate effectively about science, focusing in particular on issues that are contentious in the public sphere. To inform this research agenda, this publication identifies important influences – psychological, economic, political, social, cultural, and media-related – on how science related to such issues is understood, perceived, and used.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    Switch between the Original Pages, where you can read the report as it appeared in print, and Text Pages for the web version, where you can highlight and search the text.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  9. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!