Public Understanding of Science

Science communication has been historically predicated on the knowledge deficit model. Yet, empirical research has shown that public communication of science is more complex than what the knowledge deficit model suggests. In this essay, we pose four lines of reasoning and present empirical data for why we believe the deficit model still persists in public communication of science. First, we posit that scientists’ training results in the belief that public audiences can and do process information in a rational manner. Second, the persistence of this model may be a product of current institutional structures. Many graduate education programs in science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) fields generally lack formal training in public communication. We offer empirical evidence that demonstrates that scientists who have less positive attitudes toward the social sciences are more likely to adhere to the knowledge deficit model of science communication. Third, we present empirical evidence of how scientists conceptualize “the public” and link this to attitudes toward the deficit model. We find that perceiving a knowledge deficit in the public is closely tied to scientists’ perceptions of the individuals who comprise the public. Finally, we argue that the knowledge deficit model is perpetuated because it can easily influence public policy for science issues. We propose some ways to uproot the deficit model and move toward more effective science communication efforts, which include training scientists in communication methods grounded in social science research and using approaches that engage community members around scientific issues.

Despite mounting criticism, the deficit model remains an integral part of science communication research and practice. In this article, I advance three key factors that contribute to the idea of the public deficit in science communication, including the purpose of science communication, how communication processes and outcomes are conceptualized, and how science and scientific knowledge are defined. Affording science absolute epistemic privilege, I argue, is the most compelling factor contributing to the continued use of the deficit model. In addition, I contend that the deficit model plays a necessary, though not sufficient, role in science communication research and practice. Areas for future research are discussed.

The healthcare field contains a multitude of opportunities for science communication. Given the many stakeholders dancing together in a multidirectional tango of communication, we need to ask how much does the deficit model apply to the health field? History dictates that healthcare professionals are the holders of all knowledge, and the patients and other stakeholders are the ones that need the scientific information communicated to them. This essay argues otherwise, in part due to the rise of shared decision-making and patients and other stakeholders acting as partners in healthcare. The traditional deficit model in health held that: (1) doctors were experts and patients were consumers, (2) it is impossible for the public to grasp the many disciplines of knowledge in medicine, (3) if experts have trouble keeping up with medical research then the public surely can’t keep up, and (4) it is safer for healthcare professionals to communicate to the public using a deficit model. However, with the rise of partnerships with patients in healthcare decision-making, the deficit model might be weakening. Examples of public participation in healthcare decision-making include: (1) crowd-sourcing public participation in systematic reviews, (2) public participation in health policy, (3) public collaboration in health research, and (4) health consumer groups acting as producers of health information. With the challenges to the deficit model in science communication in health, caution is needed with the increasing role of technology and social media, and how these may affect the legitimacy of healthcare information flows away from the healthcare professional.

For centuries, science communication has been widely perceived, irrespective of context, as a didactic enterprise. That understanding does not accommodate a political category of science communication, featuring citizens on an equal footing – some of them scientists – who share responsibility for public affairs and represent different points of view and ways of reasoning. That may harm, at the same time and for the same reasons, democratic knowledge societies as political entities and science as a body of knowledge and rational methodology. Scientists are discursively excluded from the public. The public is perceived in terms of knowledge deficiency. The latter perception has survived decades of critique, accompanied by attempts, along an everyman-as-scientist logic, to include all citizens in the scientific endeavour. But why should all be scientists? With respect to practical-political issues – as distinct from technical-scientific ones – the acknowledgement of the citizenship of scientists seems more relevant. Only, this would challenge the widespread understanding of science as an all-purpose problem solver and the consequent ideas of politics.

After several years of loud and clear rejection, the idea of a public cognitive deficit insistently reappears in the agenda of Science Communication and Public Understanding of Science studies. This essay addresses two different kinds of reason – practical and epistemic – converging at that point. In the first part, it will be argued that the hypothesis of the lack of knowledge among laypeople and its controversial relationships with their interests and attitudes towards science prevails because it is an intuitive and optimistic way to frame the gap between science and society and, therefore, to cope with its causes and consequences. In the second part, a deeper level of reasons will be examined, in order to show that the persistence of the idea has its roots in the objective epistemic asymmetry between scientists and the public, the scope of which is not always properly judged. To recognize this asymmetry as a previous condition for their interactions may help to surpass the byzantine debate: deficit yes or no and open up original questions for the field, summarized in the closing remarks.

Taking Isabelle Stengers’ “ecology of practices” as an inspiration, the author answers the question animating the essay competition in four ways, each (it is hoped) generating progressively more inter+est between the communities concerned.

Understanding the heterogeneity of mechanisms that form public attitudes towards science and technology policymaking is essential to the establishment of an effective public engagement platform. Using the 2011 public opinion survey data from Japan (n = 6,136), I divided the general public into three categories: the Attentive public, who are willing to actively engage with science and technology policymaking dialogue; the Interested public, who have moderate interest in science and technology but rely on experts for policy decisions; and the Residual public, who have minimal interest in science and technology. On the basis of the results of multivariate regression analysis, I have identified several key predispositions towards science and technology and other socio-demographic characteristics that influence the shift of individuals from one category of the general public to another. The findings provide a foundation for understanding how to induce more accountable, evidence-based science and technology policymaking.

This study seeks to determine the relative influence of race and class on trust in sources of messages of environmental risk in post-Katrina New Orleans. It poses two hypotheses to test that influence: H1—African-Americans (“Blacks”) trust risk message sources less than European American (“Whites”) do and H2—The higher the socioeconomic class, the lower the trust in risk message sources. A 37-question telephone survey (landlines and cellphones) was conducted in Orleans Parish in 2012 (n = 414). The overall margin of error was ±4.8% at a 95% confidence interval. A hierarchical regression analysis revealed that the first hypothesis was rejected, while the second was supported. Additional data analysis revealed that frequency of use of sources of risk information appears to be a positive factor in building trust.

An emerging thread in the public participation debate is the need for innovative and more experimental forms of dialogue to address weaknesses of previous structured deliberative methods. This research note discusses an experiment with a distributed approach to dialogue, which used bioenergy as a case study. We discuss the potential of the model to attract a variety of publics and views and to inform policy. This is done with a view to refining future dialogues and increasing the involvement of scientists and other practitioners at the science-policy interface.

This article starts by reviewing the setbacks that the recent Science and Technology Studies literature has identified in the functioning of technologies of democracy, the different arrangements that look to enact deliberation on technoscientific issues. Putting a focus on the Citizen Consensus Conference, it then proposes that several of these setbacks are related to the kind of “work” that these technologies are expected to do, identifying two kinds of it: performing a laboratory-based experiment and constituting a platform for the dissemination of facts. It then applies this framework to study a Citizen Consensus Conference carried out in Chile in 2003. After a detailed genealogy of the planning, implementation and afterlife of this exercise, the article concludes that several of the limitations experienced are derived from a “successful outcome” conceived as solely running a neat lab-based experiment, arguing for the need to incorporate its functioning as a platform with all the associated transformations and messiness.