follow CCP

Recent blog entries
popular papers

Science Curiosity and Political Information Processing

What Is the "Science of Science Communication"?

Climate-Science Communication and the Measurement Problem

Ideology, Motivated Cognition, and Cognitive Reflection: An Experimental Study

'Ideology' or 'Situation Sense'? An Experimental Investigation of Motivated Reasoning and Professional Judgment

A Risky Science Communication Environment for Vaccines

Motivated Numeracy and Enlightened Self-Government

Making Climate Science Communication Evidence-based—All the Way Down 

Neutral Principles, Motivated Cognition, and Some Problems for Constitutional Law 

Cultural Cognition of Scientific Consensus

The Tragedy of the Risk-Perception Commons: Science Literacy and Climate Change

"They Saw a Protest": Cognitive Illiberalism and the Speech-Conduct Distinction 

Geoengineering and the Science Communication Environment: a Cross-Cultural Experiment

Fixing the Communications Failure

Why We Are Poles Apart on Climate Change

The Cognitively Illiberal State 

Who Fears the HPV Vaccine, Who Doesn't, and Why? An Experimental Study

Cultural Cognition of the Risks and Benefits of Nanotechnology

Whose Eyes Are You Going to Believe? An Empirical Examination of Scott v. Harris

Cultural Cognition and Public Policy

Culture, Cognition, and Consent: Who Perceives What, and Why, in "Acquaintance Rape" Cases

Culture and Identity-Protective Cognition: Explaining the White Male Effect

Fear of Democracy: A Cultural Evaluation of Sunstein on Risk

Cultural Cognition as a Conception of the Cultural Theory of Risk

« Weird ... does high disgust sensitivity mitigate political polarization??... | Main | Gore's sequel -- good idea or bad? »

New NAS report on #scicomm

Here's something to read & discuss ...

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

EmailEmail Article to Friend

Reader Comments (1)

I've now read the report. Ok, this is definitely about compiling available research references for the purpose of creating a (presumably) National Academy of Sciences led research agenda, and not about handing out a recipe or even guidelines now for actually "Communicating Science Effectively". The ponderous pace described therein makes it easy to see how vital organs of the body of Scientific Progress can be punctured with a few sharp tweets. And more importantly, of course, given the current political climate, leaves one big question open, how is funding for such science communications research going to be provided? All of which, IMHO, points to the idea that more accessible techniques for actually doing science communication needs to be communicated, now!

A new acquaintance of mine, Michael Klymkowsky, a professor of evolutionary, molecular and systems biology at the University of Colorado, is also the Sci-Ed blogger at PLOS. He has, IMHO, an excellent piece on an earlier NAS report on scientific literacy here: I read the above article with the hope that it was something that I could distribute to the rest of the board members of Colorado Citizens for Science, a group interested in fostering science appropriate education in public schools. Some of the board members don't need my heads up to read the NAS report on their own. But for others, I don't know that providing a link would be particularly useful. I'm hoping that Klymkowsky and others can quickly interpret and disseminate the material in manners that have more immediacy and are more readable.

December 17, 2016 | Unregistered CommenterGaythia Weis

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>