Editors: Kathleen Hall Jamiesen, Dan Kahan, and Dietram A. Scheufele
Publisher: Oxford University Press – 486 pages
Book Review by: Sonu Chandiram
This book presents case studies in which information failed, or succeeded, in communicating important points to the public. The failures and successes were determined primarily by the difficulty or ease in providing access to scientific evidence. But there were also other determinants.
This book provides coverage of a very wide range of topics in its case studies. Some of the most important topics covered in it are:
- Climate change
- Fracking
- Genetically-engineered organisms
- Nanotechnology
- Vaccination controversies
Why is it crucial that communication relating to science, termed ‘science communication’ be done correctly? Because misinformation can lead to undesirable consequences such as physical disasters, and even loss of lives, not to mention loss of money, time, and effort.
“Misinformation can elicit belief without corrective context, and likeminded individuals are prone to seek ideologically-comforting information within their own self-constructed media enclaves,” the editors and contributors point out.
Fifty-seven specialists in science communication, from the United States and six other countries – China, Germany, India, Ireland, Switzerland and the United Kingdom – authored the 47 chapters of this book.
The contents of the communications that the editors and contributors specialize in, relate to, among other subjects: behavior, cognition, economics, education, health, history, information systems, journalism, law, mass media, mental health, nutrition, politics, psychology, public policy, sociology, and technology.
The chapters in this book are organized into six Parts, namely:
- The Science of Communicating Science
- Identifying and Overcoming Challenges to Science Featured n Attacks on Science
- Science Communication in Action: Failures and Successes
- The Roles of Elite Intermediaries in Communicating Science
- The Role, Power, and Peril of Media for the Communication of Science
- Challenges to Communicating Science in a Polarize4d Environment
Some of the benefits of owning this book are the ones mentioned below. Among the large number of useful points of knowledge they provide in this book, the editors and authors:
- Chart the media landscape of science communication, including mishaps
- Examine the powers and perils of human biases
- Point out gaps between public perceptions and realities on many matters
- Provide the best means to communicate science and avoid its pernicious effects
This is an excellent work on the science of science communication. The editors and authors provide a valuable service by emphasizing the importance of transmitting science information accurately, given that in today’s world, there is rapid advancement of science and technological innovation.
Editors:
Kathleen Hall Jamieson is the Elizabeth Ware Packard Professor at the Annenberg School for Communication of the University of Pennsylvania and the Walter and Leonore Annenberg Director of its Annenberg Public Policy Center. The author of four award winning Oxford University Press books on political and press communications, she is co-founder of FactCheck.org, which researches the veracity of claims made by political players. Its SciCheck feature was launched in 2015 to expose the misuse of scientific evidence in political discourse.
Dan Kahan is the Elizabeth K. Dollard Professor of Law and Professor of Psychology at Yale Law School. He is a member of the Cultural Cognition Project, an interdisciplinary team of scholars who use empirical methods to examine the impact of group values on perceptions of risk and science communication.
Dietram A. Scheufele is the John E. Ross Professor in Science Communication and Vilas Distinguished Achievement Professor at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and in the Morgridge Institute for Research. His research deals with the interface of media, policy, and public opinion. Scheufele has co-chaired the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine’s Roundtable on Public Interfaces of the Life Sciences, and vice-chaired the recent Academies’ consensus report on “Communicating science effectively: A research agenda.”
