No description available.

No description available.

The majority of adults in the US and in Europe appear to be scientifically illiterate. This has not changed in more than half a century. It is unknown whether the Australian public is also scientifically illiterate because no similar testing is done here. Public scientific illiteracy remains in spite of improvements in science education, innovative approaches to public outreach, the encouraging of science communication via the mass media, and the advent of the Internet. Why is it that there has been so little change? Is school science education inadequate? Does something happen between leaving high school education and becoming an adult? Does Australia suffer from the same apparent malady? The pilot study at the heart of this thesis tests a total of 692 Year Ten (16-year-old) Australian students across ten high schools and a first year university class in 2005 and 2006, using measures applied to adults. Twenty-six percent of those tested participated in a related scientific literacy project utilising in-person visits to Macquarie University in both years. A small group of the students (64) tested in 2005 were considered the best science students in seven of the ten high schools. Results indicate that no more than 20% of even the best high school science students - on the point of being able to end their formal science education - are scientifically literate if measured by adult standards. Another pilot test among 150 first year university students supports that indication. This compares to a scientific literacy rate of 28% for the US public. This thesis finds that the scientific literacy enterprise ?? in all its forms ?? fails scrutiny. Either we believe our best science students are leaving high school scientifically illiterate or there is something fundamentally wrong in our perceptions of public scientific illiteracy. This pilot study ?? probably the first of its kind ?? indicates we cannot rely on our current perceptions of a scientifically illiterate public. It demonstrates that a paradigm shift in our thinking is required about what scientific literacy is and in our expectations of a scientifically literate adult public. In the worst case scenario, governments are pouring millions of dollars into science education and public outreach with little or no basis for understanding whether either is effective. That is illogical, even irresponsible. It also impacts on the way astrobiology ?? or any science ?? is communicated in public.

The majority of adults in the US and in Europe appear to be scientifically illiterate. This has not changed in more than half a century. It is unknown whether the Australian public is also scientifically illiterate because no similar testing is done here. Public scientific illiteracy remains in spite of improvements in science education, innovative approaches to public outreach, the encouraging of science communication via the mass media, and the advent of the Internet. Why is it that there has been so little change? Is school science education inadequate? Does something happen between leaving high school education and becoming an adult? Does Australia suffer from the same apparent malady? The pilot study at the heart of this thesis tests a total of 692 Year Ten (16-year-old) Australian students across ten high schools and a first year university class in 2005 and 2006, using measures applied to adults. Twenty-six percent of those tested participated in a related scientific literacy project utilising in-person visits to Macquarie University in both years. A small group of the students (64) tested in 2005 were considered the best science students in seven of the ten high schools. Results indicate that no more than 20% of even the best high school science students - on the point of being able to end their formal science education - are scientifically literate if measured by adult standards. Another pilot test among 150 first year university students supports that indication. This compares to a scientific literacy rate of 28% for the US public. This thesis finds that the scientific literacy enterprise ?? in all its forms ?? fails scrutiny. Either we believe our best science students are leaving high school scientifically illiterate or there is something fundamentally wrong in our perceptions of public scientific illiteracy. This pilot study ?? probably the first of its kind ?? indicates we cannot rely on our current perceptions of a scientifically illiterate public. It demonstrates that a paradigm shift in our thinking is required about what scientific literacy is and in our expectations of a scientifically literate adult public. In the worst case scenario, governments are pouring millions of dollars into science education and public outreach with little or no basis for understanding whether either is effective. That is illogical, even irresponsible. It also impacts on the way astrobiology ?? or any science ?? is communicated in public.

Coverage for the combined measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine (MMR) has been low since the publication of Wakefield’s 1998 study associating MMR with the onset of autism. As a part of a larger project on risk communication, this study examined the medical discourse on parental decision-making for childhood immunizations to gain insight on why risk communication efforts have not been successful at improving uptake. The Public Understanding of Science (PUS) was used as a theoretical lens to guide Critical Discourse Analysis of texts from medical, pediatric, and public health journals, from which the analytic themes of Risk and Trust emerged. MMR uptake was framed mainly in terms of risk, indicating the dominance of the Deficit Model of PUS in the discourse. Future research and risk communication need to expand beyond current notions of risk; the Contextual Model of PUS can help highlight other factors that impact parental decision-making about MMR.

Coverage for the combined measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine (MMR) has been low since the publication of Wakefield’s 1998 study associating MMR with the onset of autism. As a part of a larger project on risk communication, this study examined the medical discourse on parental decision-making for childhood immunizations to gain insight on why risk communication efforts have not been successful at improving uptake. The Public Understanding of Science (PUS) was used as a theoretical lens to guide Critical Discourse Analysis of texts from medical, pediatric, and public health journals, from which the analytic themes of Risk and Trust emerged. MMR uptake was framed mainly in terms of risk, indicating the dominance of the Deficit Model of PUS in the discourse. Future research and risk communication need to expand beyond current notions of risk; the Contextual Model of PUS can help highlight other factors that impact parental decision-making about MMR.

Myths, misinformation, and sensationalism. These are common enemies that directly inhibit the public understanding of science. In particular, the media is often responsible for mishandling or otherwise misrepresenting scientific information, historically and presently speaking. Many sources can combat the public understanding of science through pseudoscientific means. This includes but is not limited to religion, the media, politics, or just simple hearsay. For example, Young Earth creationism is deeply rooted in Christian theology, but the beliefs hold no scientific basis. Yet, almost half of Americans still believe in Young Earth creationism. Another such example is anti-vaccination campaigns due to fears of autism-spectrum related disorders. In this case, falsified claims were given illegitimate credibility through the media, and the claims are widely and erroneously contentious to this day. The purpose of this research was to investigate the relationship between an individual's ability to dictate science from pseudoscience and their exposure to sensationalized media. Through means of surveying the university level population, relationships were drawn between how many pseudoscientific beliefs an individual may have versus how they interact with science and the media. The results of the survey showed a general lack of interest or care for science with more pseudoscientific beliefs, yet failed to draw a relationship between pseudoscientific beliefs and a sensationalized media.

The purposes of this study were to examine 1) understandings of science expressed in formal salmon recovery policy discourse; 2) rhetorical practices employed to justify or undermine claims about salmon policy 3); and patterns of understandings of science and associated rhetorical practices between social categories of actors. This research contributes to scholarship in public understanding of science, discourse studies, and natural resource policy. A constructivist discourse analysis was conducted using qualitative methods to analyze transcripts from over one hundred congressional hearing witnesses representing a wide diversity of stakeholder groups. Multiple coders organized discourses into analytic categories, achieving a final proportional agreement of 80% or greater for each category, at the finest scale of analysis. Stakeholders employed a collection of prototypical understandings of the nature of science, boundaries of science, and roles of science in decision-making. The process of science was described as impartial and ideal, a way to reduce uncertainty through consensus and peer-review, and subject to changing paradigms. Scientific knowledge was sometimes represented as "truth" and other times as tentative, and scientists were portrayed as independent and objective as well as captured and interest-driven. Witnesses described science as separate from and superior to politics and management. Testimony included descriptions of science?s role in developing decision alternatives, selecting among alternatives, and evaluating and legitimating alternatives. Stakeholders used these understandings of science to construct justifications to support their claims about salmon policy and undermine opposing claims. Science-based justifications included externalizing devices, construction of consensus, category entitlement, and extreme case formulations. Other justifications invoked local control, treaty rights, and local knowledge, or relied on interest management. This study has extended the theory and method of empirical discourse analysis, and produced a taxonomy of understandings that should be transferable to studies of similar policy settings. Additionally, conclusions from this study about differences between social groups in the presence, distribution, and frequency of expression of the discourses might be developed into propositions for further testing. Finally, the study has implications for communication about the role of science in collaborative natural resource decision-making processes. / Ph. D.

The current paper presents a study conducted at At-Bristol Science Centre, UK. It is a front-end evaluation for the “Live Science Zone” at At-Bristol, which will be built during the autumn of 2004. It will provide a facility for programmed events and shows, non-programmed investigative activities and the choice of passive or active exploration of current scientific topics. The main aim of the study is to determine characteristics of what kind of techniques to use in the Live Science Zone. The objectives are to explore what has already been done at At-Bristol, and what has been done at other science centres, and to identify successful devices. The secondary aim is mapping what sorts of topics that visitors are actually interested in debating. The methods used in the study are deep qualitative interviews with professionals working within the field of science communication in Europe and North America, and questionnaires answered by visitors to At-Bristol. The results show that there are some gaps between the intentions of the professionals and the opinions of the visitors, in terms of opportunities and willingness for dialogue in science centre activities. The most popular issue was Future and the most popular device was Film.

No description available.