Science Communication and Diversity in STEM

The process by which scientific findings are translated into practical applications that benefit society.

The allocation of resources, including funding and personnel, to support specific areas of scientific research.

The process of influencing public policy through scientific evidence and expertise.

The diverse group of individuals who contribute to the scientific enterprise, including researchers, educators, and technicians.

The perceived trustworthiness and reliability of scientific knowledge.

The ability to influence decision-making based on specialized knowledge and training.

The relationship between scientists and the broader public, involving communication, trust, and understanding.

The spread of inaccurate or misleading information, often with the intention of deceiving or manipulating.

This refers to how government officials use scientific information to make policy decisions. It involves analyzing scientific evidence, considering its implications, and making choices based on the findings.

In the US, power is shared between the federal government, states, and local governments. It's important to remember that decisions made at all levels can affect science and policy.

Federal agencies like the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the National Science Foundation (NSF) play a crucial role in funding scientific research and development.

The President's ability to influence public opinion and policy through speeches, press conferences, and other public statements.

The quality of being believed and trusted, especially in terms of having knowledge and competence.

Scientists are not inherently credible, they must earn it by demonstrating knowledge and trustworthiness.

Non-scientists can achieve credibility by demonstrating expertise through experience, research, or independent study. Examples include professionals with relevant knowledge, those with firsthand experience, and independent scholars.

AIDS activists in the US built credibility by advocating for their cause and working with scientists to design and interpret drug trials. This demonstrates how non-scientists can gain credibility over time by engaging in specific areas of expertise.

Engaging lay expertise is not just a matter of scientists being humble, but rather acknowledging the value and agency of non-scientists who can build credibility over time through their contributions.

A challenge to the traditional idea that focusing on basic science will automatically create a reservoir of findings for health, wealth, and security.

A challenge to the conventional idea that simply disseminating scientific findings will lead to their use by decision-makers.

A researcher who highlighted the limitations of information dissemination in influencing decision-making.

The idea that new collaborations between experts from different fields are essential for setting research agendas and using scientific results.

Collaborative relationships focused on knowledge exchange where decision-makers maintain autonomy.

Collaborative relationships focused on projects where decision-makers share ownership, decision-making authority, and accountability.

The gap between the desire for collaborative relationships and their actual development.

Examples of groups where collaboration is often desired but not readily available.

People are more likely to engage in new collaborative relationships when they perceive others as having useful, task-relevant information that is trustworthy.

People are more likely to engage in new collaborative relationships when they perceive the experience of interacting will be enjoyable.

People are more likely to engage in new collaborative relationships when the potential collaborator directly communicates information to resolve uncertainty about relationality and a third party creates an opportunity that resolves uncertainty about relationality.

A survey designed to identify unmet desires for collaboration related to evidence-informed policymaking.

A survey focused on local policymakers to uncover their unmet desire for a more evidence-informed policymaking process. It targeted local policymakers as they are important decision-makers and local researchers as new collaborative relationships are possible.

Three surveys aimed at understanding the unmet desire for ethics-informed policymaking among different types of policymakers involved in community health decisions.

A survey that investigated the unmet desires among sustainability professionals in county/municipal governments adjacent to R1 universities around the US. It focused on officials like Directors of Sustainability and Energy & Climate Change.

Everyone agreeing on fundamental facts and principles allows for informed debates and solutions.

When everyone questions everything, it creates uncertainty and instability.

Science provides reliable knowledge to address complex issues, especially in rapidly changing situations like pandemics.

Misinformation can spread from ordinary people trying to make sense of difficult situations or from influential figures with hidden motives.

Social media amplifies misinformation quickly and easily, making it difficult to distinguish truth from falsehood.

When scientific knowledge is evolving rapidly, it can be easily misinterpreted or manipulated, leading to misinformation.

Political agendas can contribute to the spread of misinformation, either intentionally or unintentionally.

The spread of misinformation during the COVID-19 pandemic significantly impacted public health, affecting people's decisions about vaccines and treatments.