<p>As the western society gradually turns into a knowledge- and risk society, where science and scientific innovations increasingly both promise to save the world and destroy it, a shift in the relation between the scientific community and the rest of society has emerged. A shift from a top-down one-way transfer view regarding communication, to a dialogue-based interactive co-production model, where the public are part of setting the agenda for research and contribute to the knowledge production. Or at least in theory, in EU documents and in many different country's policy documents. In practical application however, one might have a hard time see the implementation of such model.</p><p>As a more comprehensive and dialogue-based science communication is depending on the possibility for scientist themselves to engage and fell the need to engage, we have focused on their thoughts.</p><p>In this thesis we have examined six scientists view on, and work with, science communication, as well as their perceived social and structural conditions. We have also examined action plans and strategy documents from three Swedish universities that in different ways mention science communication and interaction with the broader society. Finally we have compared the view on science communication that we have found in the documents with that of the scientists.</p><p>We have used qualitative interviews to gather information from the six scientists, who range from 30 to 60 years in age and come from different fields of study. For the documents we used a qualitative analyse, searching for different areas regarding science communication and interaction with society.</p><p>Our finding show that both the view of the scientist and that of the documents, regarding science communication, more resemble that of the older one-way transfer model, although some minor parts remind of a dialogue-based model.</p><p>All the scientists we have interviewed are positive to science communication, especially for its possibility to increase the knowledge in general society and set a ground for better decision making, and also to give legitimacy for both research and the decisions based on it.</p><p>Regarding their practical work with science communication, no one have fixed routines, and the time they spend differ greatly. It is mostly reactive in nature and consist of lectures, popular science articles, participation in interviews in media and conferences etcetera. Three of the scientists use, or are about to use, websites where they communicate their science.</p><p>Socially, most of the scientists both talk extensively with their colleagues about science communication and feel that they think it is important. When it comes to their superior or employer view on science communication most of the scientists don't feel that they act as if it is a subject of concern. Regarding to the academic world at large, they think it is both seen as something positive and sometimes negative. For example some scientists may see it as a positive and important work, while others see the science communication as being part of self promotion and a attempt to raise more funds for specific research. The scientists still feel principle encourage to work with science communication.</p><p>The structural conditions differ between the different scientists, and only one has had training in science communication, although three think they have the possibility to get training. All the scientist have possibility to get some help with their communication however. Two of the scientists felt that their conditions for working with science communication are sufficient, while others feel the need for more resources, time and natural environments for engagement.</p><p>In the action plans and strategy documents we found five interesting areas regarding science communication and engagement with the broader society. First of are their view on science communication and its positive effects. Here all the universities point at the importance of science communication for a sustainable development. They also focus on the benefit for the research in utilizing the knowledge and experience of the broader society. Secondly two of the universities give examples on how they work with science communication. Here they mention open lectures, seminars, study visits, among other. The third area focus on the education of scientist in science communication. Here KTH strongly emphasis the importance education for good leadership and communicative skills for scientists. Fourth, the need for better structural conditions is something that Södertörn stresses, both regarding funding, merits and different departments’ tasks regarding science communication. Last, the importance of business related education as a way of spreading knowledge is something that all the universities focus on.</p>

As the western society gradually turns into a knowledge- and risk society, where science and scientific innovations increasingly both promise to save the world and destroy it, a shift in the relation between the scientific community and the rest of society has emerged. A shift from a top-down one-way transfer view regarding communication, to a dialogue-based interactive co-production model, where the public are part of setting the agenda for research and contribute to the knowledge production. Or at least in theory, in EU documents and in many different country's policy documents. In practical application however, one might have a hard time see the implementation of such model. As a more comprehensive and dialogue-based science communication is depending on the possibility for scientist themselves to engage and fell the need to engage, we have focused on their thoughts. In this thesis we have examined six scientists view on, and work with, science communication, as well as their perceived social and structural conditions. We have also examined action plans and strategy documents from three Swedish universities that in different ways mention science communication and interaction with the broader society. Finally we have compared the view on science communication that we have found in the documents with that of the scientists. We have used qualitative interviews to gather information from the six scientists, who range from 30 to 60 years in age and come from different fields of study. For the documents we used a qualitative analyse, searching for different areas regarding science communication and interaction with society. Our finding show that both the view of the scientist and that of the documents, regarding science communication, more resemble that of the older one-way transfer model, although some minor parts remind of a dialogue-based model. All the scientists we have interviewed are positive to science communication, especially for its possibility to increase the knowledge in general society and set a ground for better decision making, and also to give legitimacy for both research and the decisions based on it. Regarding their practical work with science communication, no one have fixed routines, and the time they spend differ greatly. It is mostly reactive in nature and consist of lectures, popular science articles, participation in interviews in media and conferences etcetera. Three of the scientists use, or are about to use, websites where they communicate their science. Socially, most of the scientists both talk extensively with their colleagues about science communication and feel that they think it is important. When it comes to their superior or employer view on science communication most of the scientists don't feel that they act as if it is a subject of concern. Regarding to the academic world at large, they think it is both seen as something positive and sometimes negative. For example some scientists may see it as a positive and important work, while others see the science communication as being part of self promotion and a attempt to raise more funds for specific research. The scientists still feel principle encourage to work with science communication. The structural conditions differ between the different scientists, and only one has had training in science communication, although three think they have the possibility to get training. All the scientist have possibility to get some help with their communication however. Two of the scientists felt that their conditions for working with science communication are sufficient, while others feel the need for more resources, time and natural environments for engagement. In the action plans and strategy documents we found five interesting areas regarding science communication and engagement with the broader society. First of are their view on science communication and its positive effects. Here all the universities point at the importance of science communication for a sustainable development. They also focus on the benefit for the research in utilizing the knowledge and experience of the broader society. Secondly two of the universities give examples on how they work with science communication. Here they mention open lectures, seminars, study visits, among other. The third area focus on the education of scientist in science communication. Here KTH strongly emphasis the importance education for good leadership and communicative skills for scientists. Fourth, the need for better structural conditions is something that Södertörn stresses, both regarding funding, merits and different departments’ tasks regarding science communication. Last, the importance of business related education as a way of spreading knowledge is something that all the universities focus on.

L’émergence de l’utilisation du méthylphénidate (MPH; Ritalin) par des étudiants universitaires afin d’améliorer leur concentration et leurs performances universitaires suscite l’intérêt du public et soulève d’importants débats éthiques auprès des spécialistes. Les différentes perspectives sur l’amélioration des performances cognitives représentent une dimension importante des défis sociaux et éthiques autour d’un tel phénomène et méritent d’être élucidées. Ce mémoire vise à examiner les discours présents dans les reportages internationaux de presse populaire, les discours en bioéthique et en en santé publique sur le thème de l’utilisation non médicale du méthylphénidate. Cette recherche a permis d’identifier et d’analyser des « lacunes » dans les perspectives éthiques, sociales et scientifiques de l’utilisation non médicale du méthylphénidate pour accroître la performance cognitive d’individus en santé. Une analyse systématique du contenu des discours sur l’utilisation non médicale du méthylphénidate pour accroître la performance cognitive a identifié des paradigmes divergents employés pour décrire l’utilisation non médicale du méthylphénidate et discuter ses conséquences éthiques. Les paradigmes « choix de mode de vie », « abus de médicament » et « amélioration de la cognition » sont présents dans les discours de la presse populaire, de la bioéthique et de la santé publique respectivement. Parmi les principales différences entre ces paradigmes, on retrouve : la description de l’utilisation non médicale d’agents neuropharmacologiques pour l’amélioration des performances, les risques et bénéfices qui y sont associés, la discussion d’enjeux éthiques et sociaux et des stratégies de prévention et les défis associés à l’augmentation de la prévalence de ce phénomène. La divergence de ces paradigmes reflète le pluralisme des perceptions de l’utilisation non médicale d’agents neuropharmacologiques Nos résultats suggèrent la nécessité de débats autour de l’amélioration neuropharmacologique afin de poursuivre l’identification des enjeux et de développer des approches de santé publique cohérentes. / The non-medical use of neuropharmaceuticals has sparked ethical debates. For example, there is mounting evidence that methylphenidate (MPH; Ritalin) is being used by healthy university students to improve concentration, alertness, and academic performance, a phenomenon known as cognitive enhancement. The different perspectives on the ethics of cognitive enhancement represent an important dimension of the social and ethical challenges related to such practices but have yet to be examined thoroughly. This thesis aimed to assess existing positive and negative reports in international print media, bioethics literature, and public health literature on the use of MPH to identify and analyze gaps in the ethical, social, and scientific perspectives about the non-medical use of MPH for cognitive enhancement in healthy individuals. A systematic content analysis of discourses on the non-medical use of methylphenidate for cognitive enhancement identified divergent frameworks employed to describe the non-medical use of methylphenidate and discuss its ethical implications: The frameworks of “lifestyle choice”, “prescription drug abuse” and “cognitive enhancement” are present in print media, bioethics, and public health discourses respectively. Important differences between frameworks include the description of the non-medical use of neuropharmaceuticals for cognitive enhancement, associated risks and benefits, discussion of ethical and social issues surrounding the phenomenon and the prevention strategies and challenges to the widespread use of neuropharmaceuticals for cognitive enhancement. Diverging frameworks reflect pluralism in perceptions if the non-medical use of neuropharmaceuticals for cognitive enhancement. At this time, unacknowledged pluralism and implicit assumptions about cognitive enhancement may impede public health interventions and ethics discussions.

This dissertation is an empirical study of the scientific literacy of 28 young adults (aged 18-26 years) in the context of their decision making about the health risks of mobile phones. The issue of possible health effects is one of a number of socioscientific issues now confronting adults in the 'knowledge/risk' society where scientific knowledge plays an increasingly significant role in people's lives. The focus of interest is the young people's responses to the uncertain science of 'science in the making' (Latour, 1987) and their positioning of this scientific knowledge in their risk assessments. The study is based on an interactive model of the public understanding of science and applies a critical realist and moderate social constructionist methodology. Data construction included focus groups and semi-structured individual interviews. The stimulus for discussion in the focus groups was a recent television news report presenting contradictory scientific research findings about whether mobile phones pose significant health risks. In the individual interviews understanding of the nature of science and risk judgments were explored. Data analysis involved a coding of the discourse in terms of themes and issues and interpretation of these in terms of the theoretical framework of the thesis. A major finding was that these young people interpreted the uncertainty of the scientific knowledge mainly in social terms and with limited understanding of the role of theory in interpreting data. They talked spontaneously of risk but did not draw on scientific knowledge or risk estimates in their judgment about mobile phone safety. Findings have important implications for science education and suggest a broadened conception of scientific literacy which includes critical dimensions and risk literacy. It is argued that this functional scientific literacy is essential for effective citizenship in contemporary society.

Made available in DSpace on 2016-08-03T12:30:35Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 Audre Cristina.pdf: 2001141 bytes, checksum: 2d33edfbf7c8c45b59071b848a6f1169 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2007-05-17 / Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior / This work researches the covering of Science, Technology and Inovation (ST&I) on brazilian open channel TV news, at prime time (from 7:15 pm to 10 pm), to notice the educational function of media in the approach of the subjects ST&I. The corpus of this research is made up from a clipping from the following TV news: Jornal da Band, Jornal Nacional, Jornal da Record, Jornal da Cultura and SBT Brasil. The proposal was to evaluate comparatively the journalist subjects that specifically deal with ST&I, in relation to the format, the language and the contents of each studied programs. This work made use of the French Discourse Analysis (DA) Methodology. This quality research also englobed a Study of Reception about the selected reportings. The procedure employed for this was the Focus Groups. This way, it attempted to análise the communication process that covers the news subjects of ST&I from messages to reception. This study noticed that ST&I is present subject on brazilian TV news even if there happen unpredictable facts (from others editorials) that influence significatively the covering of the TV news. It also noticed that there isn´t among the selected TV news a deepening standard and contextualization of ST&I subjects but that the approach varies even involving a single edition. The broadcasting channels, even admitting the importance of ST&I, are still oscillate between a contextualized approach and the simple description of the principal fact. The language used on TV news concerned with the subjects of Science, Tecchnology and Inovation is predominantly clear and simple. Nevertheless it was possible to notice some nuances, with the use of specific terms of the scientific language without the subject offering any explanation about such concepts. The experience of the Focus Groups showed that television viewers are not passive in relation to the scientific contents of the telejournalist programs. In general, people are interested in ST&I and know how to evaluate the subjects qualitatively. Analyzing how the subjects about ST&I make sense and what contribution they can give to the Public Understanding of Science, facilitated important reflections about the limitations and the potencials of television and the linked messages as well as the interest and critical vision in respect to the subjects of ST&I.(AU) / Este trabalho investiga a cobertura de Ciência, Tecnologia e Inovação (CT&I) nos telejornais brasileiros de canal aberto, no horário nobre (das 19h15 às 22h), para verificar a função educativa da mídia na abordagem de assuntos de CT&I. O corpus desta pesquisa compõe-se de um recorte dos seguintes telejornais: Jornal da Band, Jornal Nacional, Jornal da Record, Jornal da Cultura e SBT Brasil. A proposta foi avaliar, comparativamente, as matérias jornalísticas que tratam especificamente de CT&I, em relação ao formato, à linguagem e aos conteúdos de cada um dos programas estudados. Este trabalho empregou a metodologia de Análise de Discurso de linha Francesa (AD). Esta pesquisa, de natureza qualitativa, também englobou um Estudo de Recepção sobre as reportagens selecionadas. O procedimento utilizado para isso foi o de Grupos Focais. Dessa forma, buscou-se analisar o processo de Comunicação que envolve as matérias telejornalísticas de CT&I das mensagens à recepção. Este estudo verificou que CT&I é um assunto presente nos telejornais brasileiros mesmo quando ocorrem fatos imprevisíveis (de outras editorias) que influenciam significativamente a cobertura dos noticiários televisivos. Constatou também que não há, entre os telejornais selecionados, um padrão de aprofundamento e contextualização dos assuntos CT&I, mas que a abordagem varia até dentro de uma única edição. As emissoras, mesmo reconhecendo a importância de CT&I, ainda oscilam entre uma abordagem contextualizada e a simples descrição do fato principal. A linguagem empregada pelos telejornais para o tratamento de assuntos de Ciência, Tecnologia e Inovação é, predominantemente, clara e simples. No entanto, foi possível verificar algumas nuances, com o uso de termos específicos da linguagem científica sem que a matéria oferecesse qualquer explicação sobre tais conceitos. A experiência dos Grupos Focais revelou que os telespectadores não são passivos em relação aos conteúdos científicos dos programas telejornalísticos. De modo geral, o público se interessa por CT&I e sabe avaliar qualitativamente as matérias. Analisar como as matérias sobre CT&I produzem sentidos e qual a contribuição que estas podem dar à Compreensão Pública da Ciência possibilitou reflexões relevantes sobre as limitações e os potenciais da televisão e das mensagens veiculadas, assim como o interesse e a visão crítica a respeito dos assuntos de CT&I.(AU)

No description available.