Communicating Science Effectively: A Research Agenda (2017)
Chapter: Appendix A: Agendas of Public Meetings
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 | ||
| 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 | ||
| 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 | ||
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 |
| 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 |
| 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) | |
