National Academies Press: OpenBook
« Previous: 11 Reflections on the Colloquium
Suggested Citation:"References." National Academy of Sciences. 2018. The Science of Science Communication III: Inspiring Novel Collaborations and Building Capacity: Proceedings of a Colloquium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24958.
×

References

Image

Akin, H., K. M. Rose, D. A. Scheufele, M. Simis-Wilkinson, D. Brossard, M. A. Xenos, and E. A. Corley. 2017. Mapping the landscape of public attitudes on synthetic biology. Bioscience 67(3):290-300.

Alberts, B., R. J. Cicerone, S. E. Fienberg, A. Kamb, M. McNutt, R. M. Nerem, R. Schekman, R. Shiffrin, V. Stodden, S. Suresh, M. T. Zuber, B. K. Pope, and K. H. Jamieson. 2015. Self-correction in science at work. Science 348(6242):1420-1422.

ASA (American Sociological Association). 2016. What Counts?: Evaluating Public Communication in Tenure and Promotion. Final Report of the ASA Subcommittee on the Evaluation of Social Media and Public Communication in Sociology. Washington, DC. Available at http://www.asanet.org/sites/default/files/tf_report_what_counts_evaluating_public_communication_in_tenure_and_promotion_final_august_2016.pdf.

Bond, R. M., C. J. Fariss, J. J. Jones, A. D. I. Kramer, C. Marlow, J. Settle, and J. H. Fowler. 2012. A 62-million-person experiment in social influence and political mobilization. Nature 489(7415):295-298.

Burroughs Wellcome Fund and Howard Hughes Medical Institute. 2006. Making the Right Moves: A Practical Guide to Scientific Management for Postdocs and New Faculty, 2nd ed. Available at http://www.hhmi.org/developing-scientists/making-right-moves.

Cash, D. W., W. C. Clark, F. Alcock, N. M. Dickson, N. Eckley, D. H. Guston, J. Jaeger, and R. B. Mitchell. 2003. Knowledge systems for sustainable development. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 100(14):8086-8091.

Dryden, R., M. G. Morgan, A. Bostrom, and W. Bruine de Bruin. 2017. Perceptions of how long air pollution and carbon dioxide remain in the atmosphere. Risk Analysis doi: 10.1111/risa.12856.

Esvelt, K. M., and N. J. Gemmell. 2017. Conservation demands safe gene drive. PLoS Biology 15(11):e2003850.

Fanelli, D. 2009. How many scientists fabricate and falsify research? A systematic review and meta-analysis of survey data. PLoS ONE 4(5):e5738.

Suggested Citation:"References." National Academy of Sciences. 2018. The Science of Science Communication III: Inspiring Novel Collaborations and Building Capacity: Proceedings of a Colloquium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24958.
×

Fang, F. C., R. G. Steen, and A. Casadevall. 2012. Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 109(42):17028-17033.

Fischhoff, B. 2013. The science of science communication. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 110(Suppl 3):14031-14032.

Fischhoff, B. 2015. The realities of risk-cost-benefit analysis. Science 350(6260):527.

Fischhoff, B., N. Brewer, and J. S. Downs, eds. 2011. Communicating Risks and Benefits: An Evidence-Based User’s Guide. Silver Spring, MD: U.S. Department of Health.

Fiske, S. T., and C. Dupree. 2014. Gaining trust as well as respect in communicating to motivated audiences about science topics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 111(Suppl 4):13593-13597.

Fleishman, L. A., W. Bruine de Bruin, and M. G. Morgan. 2010. Informed public preferences for electricity portfolios with CCS and other low-carbon technologies. Risk Analysis 30(9):1399-1410.

Guston, D. H. 2000. Between Politics and Science: Assuring the Integrity and Productivity of Research. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Ioannidis, J. P. A. 2005. Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Medicine 2(8):e124.

IOM (Institute of Medicine). 1999. Toward Environmental Justice: Research, Education, and Health Policy Needs. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

IOM. 2014. Characterizing and Communicating Uncertainty in the Assessment of Benefits and Risks of Pharmaceutical Products: Workshop Summary. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

IOM and NRC (National Research Council). 2015. Potential Risks and Benefits of Gain-of-Function Research: Summary of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

Iyengar, S., and S. J. Westwood. 2015. Fear and loathing across party lines: New evidence on group polarization. American Journal of Political Science 59(3):690-707.

Iyengar, S., G. Sood, and Y. Lelkes. 2012. Affect, not ideology: A social identity perspective on polarization. Public Opinion Quarterly 76(3):405-431.

Jamieson, K. H., D. Kahan, and D. A. Scheufele, eds. 2017. The Oxford Handbook of the Science of Science Communication. New York: Oxford University Press.

John, L. K., J. G. Lowenstein, and D. Prelec. 2012. Measuring the prevalence of questionable research practices with incentives for truth telling. Psychological Science 23(5):524-532.

Kohl, P., D. Brossard, D. A. Scheufele, and M. A. Xenos. 2017. Managing evolution to help nature keep pace with rapid change: Moral dimensions of proposals gene-edit wildlife. Paper presented at the 2017 meeting of the Society for Literature, Science, and the Arts, Tempe, AZ.

Lull, R. B., D. Brossard, W. K. Hallman, and K. H. Jamieson. 2017. The role of perceived risk of genetic engineering (GE) on public support for the release of GE mosquitoes to reduce the spread of Zika virus. Paper presented at the Society for Risk Analysis Policy Forum, Venice, Italy.

Manski, C. 2013. Public Policy in an Uncertain World: Analysis and Decisions. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Martinson, B. C., M. S. Anderson, and R. de Vries. 2005. Scientists behaving badly. Nature 435:737-738.

McNutt, M. 2014. Journals unite for reproducibility. Science 346(6210):679.

McNutt, M., M. Bradford, J. Drazen, R. B. Hanson, B. Howard, K. H. Jamieson, V. Kiermer, M. Magoulias, E. Marcus, B. K. Pope, R. Schekman, S. Swaminathan, P. Stang, and I. Verma. 2018. Transparency in authors’ contributions and responsibilities to promote integrity in scientific publication. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 115(11):2557-2560.

Suggested Citation:"References." National Academy of Sciences. 2018. The Science of Science Communication III: Inspiring Novel Collaborations and Building Capacity: Proceedings of a Colloquium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24958.
×

NAS (National Academy of Sciences). 2014. The Science of Science Communication II: Summary of a Colloquium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

NAS, NAE (National Academy of Engineering), and IOM. 1992. Ensuring the Integrity of the Scientific Research Process. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

NASEM (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine). 2015. The Integration of Immigrants into American Society. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

NASEM. 2017a. Communicating Science Effectively: A Research Agenda. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

NASEM. 2017b. Building Communication Capacity to Counter Infectious Disease Threats: Proceedings of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

NASEM. 2017c. Fostering Integrity in Research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

NASEM. 2017d. The Economic and Fiscal Consequences of Immigration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

Nicholas, G., and S. T. Fiske. In preparation. Open-ended associations to social categories.

Noble, C., B. Adlam, G. M. Church, K. M. Esvelt, and M. A. Nowak. 2017. Current CRISPR gene drive systems are likely to be highly invasive in wild populations. bioR iv. doi: 10.1101/219022.

Nosek, B. A., G. Alter, G. C. Banks, D. Borsboom, S. D. Bowman, S. J. Breckler, S. Buck, C. D. Chambers, G. Chin, G. Christensen, M. Contestabile, A. Dafoe, E. Eich, J. Freese, R. Glennerster, D. Goroff, D. P. Green, B. Hesse, M. Humphreys, J. Ishiyama, D. Karlan, A. Kraut, A. Lupia, P. Mabry, T. A. Madon, N. Malhotra, E. Mayo-Wilson, M. McNutt, E. Miguel, E. L. Paluck, U. Simonsohn, C. Soderberg, B. A. Spellman, J. Turitto, G. VandenBos, S. Vazire, E. J. Wagenmakers, R. Wilson, and T. Yarkoni. 2015. Promoting an open research culture: The TOP Guidelines for journals. Science 348(6242):1422-1425.

NRC (National Research Council). 1989. Improving Risk Communication. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

NRC. 2011. Intelligence Analysis for Tomorrow: Advances from the Behavioral and Social Sciences. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

Nyhan, B., and J. Reifler. 2015. Does correcting myths about the flu vaccine work? An experimental evaluation of the effects of corrective information. Vaccine 33(3):459-464.

Nyhan, B., J. Reifler, S. Richey, and G. L. Freed. 2014. Effective messages in vaccine promotion: A randomized trial. Pediatrics 133(4):1-8.

OSC (Open Science Collaboration). 2015. Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science 349(6251):943.

Palmgren, C. R., M. G. Morgan, W. Bruine de Bruin, and D. W. Keith. 2004. Initial public perceptions of deep geological and oceanic disposal of carbon dioxide. Environmental Science and Technology 38(24):6441-6450.

Rhoten, D. 2003. Final Report: A Multi-Method Analysis of the Social and Technical Conditions for Interdisciplinary Collaboration. San Francisco, CA: The Hybrid Vigor Institute.

Riquelme, F., and P. González-Cantergiani. 2016. Measuring user influence on Twitter: A survey. Information Processing and Management 52(5):949-975.

Scheufele, D. A., M. A. Xenos, E. L. Howell, K. M. Rose, D. Brossard, and B. W. Hardy. 2017. U.S. attitudes on human genome editing. Science 357(6351):553-554.

Smith, M. J., S. S. Ellenberg, L. M. Bell, and D. M. Rubin. 2008. Media coverage of the measles-mumps-rubella vaccine and autism controversy and its relationship to MMR immunization rates in the United States. Pediatrics 121:e836-e843.

Stodden, V., M. McNutt, D. H. Bailey, E. Deelman, Y. Gil, B. Hanson, M. A. Heroux, J. P. A. Ioannidis, and M. Taufer. 2016. Enhancing reproducibility for computational methods. Science 354(6317):1240-1241.

Suggested Citation:"References." National Academy of Sciences. 2018. The Science of Science Communication III: Inspiring Novel Collaborations and Building Capacity: Proceedings of a Colloquium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24958.
×

This page intentionally left blank.

Suggested Citation:"References." National Academy of Sciences. 2018. The Science of Science Communication III: Inspiring Novel Collaborations and Building Capacity: Proceedings of a Colloquium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24958.
×
Page 75
Suggested Citation:"References." National Academy of Sciences. 2018. The Science of Science Communication III: Inspiring Novel Collaborations and Building Capacity: Proceedings of a Colloquium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24958.
×
Page 76
Suggested Citation:"References." National Academy of Sciences. 2018. The Science of Science Communication III: Inspiring Novel Collaborations and Building Capacity: Proceedings of a Colloquium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24958.
×
Page 77
Suggested Citation:"References." National Academy of Sciences. 2018. The Science of Science Communication III: Inspiring Novel Collaborations and Building Capacity: Proceedings of a Colloquium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24958.
×
Page 78
Next: Appendix A: Agenda »
The Science of Science Communication III: Inspiring Novel Collaborations and Building Capacity: Proceedings of a Colloquium Get This Book
×
Buy Paperback | $45.00 Buy Ebook | $36.99
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

Successful scientists must be effective communicators within their professions. Without those skills, they could not write papers and funding proposals, give talks and field questions, or teach classes and mentor students. However, communicating with audiences outside their profession - people who may not share scientists' interests, technical background, cultural assumptions, and modes of expression - presents different challenges and requires additional skills. Communication about science in political or social settings differs from discourse within a scientific discipline. Not only are scientists just one of many stakeholders vying for access to the public agenda, but the political debates surrounding science and its applications may sometimes confront scientists with unfamiliar and uncomfortable discussions involving religious values, partisan interests, and even the trustworthiness of science.

The Science of Science Communication III: Inspiring Novel Collaborations and Building Capacity summarizes the presentations and discussions from a Sackler Colloquium convened in November 2017. This event used Communicating Science Effectively as a framework for examining how one might apply its lessons to research and practice. It considered opportunities for creating and applying the science along with the barriers to doing so, such as the incentive systems in academic institutions and the perils of communicating science in polarized environments. Special attention was given to the organization and infrastructure necessary for building capacity in science communication.

  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!