La plupart des Américains ne sont pas préoccupés par les vaccins. Cependant, minorité petite mais vocale l’est, et un nombre croissant de parents américains reçoivent des exemptions de vaccination pour leurs enfants sur la base de la religion ou de «convictions personnelles». Le refus vaccinal peut avoir des conséquences désastreuses: dans certaines communautés, la couverture vaccinale infantile a plongé bien en deçà du seuil requis pour «l'immunité collective», permettant à des maladies comme la rougeole d'opérer un retour en force. L'hésitation vaccinale et le refus vaccinal sont souvent attribués au manque de connaissances ou de compréhension des « faits » scientifiques des anti-vaccins. La plupart des interventions de santé publique qui visent à promouvoir la vaccination reposent sur la simple diffusion de connaissances scientifiques fiables; la communication scientifique est perçue comme un processus à sens unique de diffusion des connaissances scientifiques. La théorie est la suivante : si les anti-vaccins savaient à quel point les vaccins sont sécuritaires, efficaces et nécessaires, ils vaccineraient davantage. Malheureusement, la littérature dans plusieurs disciplines suggère que de telles interventions d'éducation passive à l'échelle de la communauté sont généralement inefficaces pour persuader les anti-vaccins d'adopter des attitudes et des comportements pro-vaccination. Pourquoi? En m'inspirant des principes de transdisciplinarité d'Edgar Morin, de la théorie des révolutions scientifiques de Thomas Kuhn et de la méthodologie de revue méta-narrative de Trisha Greenhalgh, j'examine les publications de différents auteurs phares de différentes disciplines qui fournissent directement ou indirectement une réponse à cette question. Je distingue trois approches principales, qui diffèrent quant à leur explication générale des raisons pour lesquelles les interventions basées sur la simple diffusion de preuves scientifiques échouent. La première explication est que les anti-vaccins n'ont pas les connaissances scientifiques nécessaires pour comprendre les preuves scientifiques qui leur sont présentées. La deuxième est que la résistance des anti-vaccins aux preuves scientifiques peut s’expliquer par de nombreux biais cognitifs qui anènent les individus à faire des erreurs systématiques de jugement et à s'écarter ainsi de l’idéal décisionnel de la théorie du choix rationnel. Le troisième narratif sur les anti-vaccins met l'accent sur les influences socioculturelles. Selon la théorie de la cognition culturelle, la culture influence les perceptions du risque à travers des biais cognitifs. Ces trois narratifs sur l'hésitation et le refus de la vaccination sont examinés en profondeur afin de fournir une synthèse interdisciplinaire des facteurs qui peuvent expliquer l'échec des interventions de santé publique basées sur l'éducation à persuader les anti-vaccins. / Most Americans are not concerned about vaccines. However, a small but vocal minority is, and a growing number of parents are receiving vaccine mandate exemptions for their children on the basis of religion or “personal belief.” Vaccine refusal can have disastrous consequences: in some communities, childhood vaccination coverage has dived well below the threshold required for “herd immunity,” allowing diseases like measles to stage a forceful comeback. Vaccine hesitancy and refusal are often attributed to a lack of knowledge or lack of understanding of scientific “facts” on the part of antivaxxers. Most public health interventions that aim to promote vaccination rely on disseminating trustworthy scientific knowledge and see science communication as a one-way process of diffusion of scientific evidence. If antivaxxers knew how safe, effective, and necessary vaccines are, the theory goes, they would vaccinate more. Unfortunately, literature across disciplines suggests that such passive, community-wide education interventions are mostly ineffective at persuading antivaxxers to adopt pro-vaccination attitudes and behaviours. Why? Inspired by Edgar Morin’s principles of transdisciplinarity, Thomas Kuhn’s theory of scientific revolutions, and Trisha Greenhalgh’s meta-narrative review methodology, I examine the publications of different seminal authors across disciplines that directly or indirectly provide an answer to this question. I distinguish three main approaches, which differ as to their general explanation of why interventions based on simple dissemination of scientific evidence fail. The first explanation is that antivaxxers lack the scientific literacy that is necessary to understand the scientific evidence that is presented to them. The second is that antivaxxers’ resistance to scientific evidence can be explained by the numerous cognitive biases and “rules of thumb” that lead individuals to make systematic errors in judgment and thus deviate from the rational choice theory decision-making ideal. The third narrative stresses sociocultural influences. According to cultural cognition theory, culture influences risk perceptions through the mechanisms of cognitive biases and heuristics. These three narratives about vaccine hesitancy and refusal are thoroughly examined in order to provide a cross-disciplinary synthesis of factors that may explain the failure of education-based public health interventions to persuade antivaxxers.

The September 11, 2001 Jihadists attack on the West and the subsequent wars on terrorism indicate that war may be a permanent condition of life in the contemporary world. This implies that to understand contemporary society, culture and communication requires an understanding of war because war could perhaps provide a perspective through which to understand the world. The aim of this study is to provide such a perspective and to critically explore the link between war and communication. However, in approaching a study of war one is confronted with a pervasive pacifist anti-war ideological bias. To overcome the bias the study adopts a critical strategy: firstly it deconstructs the taken for granted assumptions about the positive value of peace and then it reconstructs and traces the contours of a Western tradition of philosophical thought that considers war as being an integral and formative aspect of human identity and communication. Chapter 2 uncovers the limitations of the pacifists' discourse on war. Chapter 3 traces the Western tradition originating in Heraclitus that considers war as formative experience of being human. Chapter 4 traces war and killing as formative of language and communication. Using these insights a careful reading and interpretation of how war informs the thought and functions in the texts of selected social theorists of the twentieth century. Chapter 5 traces war as an agonistic structure in the works of Johan Huizinga on the role of play and in the political theory of Carl Schmitt. Chapter 6 explores the idea of war as a model of society in the works of Foucault. Chapter 7 investigates the central influence of real and imagined war on Marshall McLuhan’s theory of the media. Chapter 8 explores the way war structures the thought of Lyotard on the postmodern condition. Chapter 9 concludes by drawing implications on how a perspective on war contributes to development of communication theory and understanding life in the postmodern condition. / Communication Science / D. Litt. et Phil. Communication )

Les innovations médicales ont un impact considérable sur les pratiques cliniques, sur la formulation des politiques et sur les attentes du public envers le système de santé. Dans un contexte de système de santé public, les conséquences économiques importantes des innovations médicales freinent grandement leur adoption alors qu’elles sont souvent représentées dans les médias comme étant hautement désirables. Une telle définition de la problématique limite le débat sur ce qui rend les innovations sociales et technologiques en santé pertinentes d’un point de vue de santé des populations. Il apparaît donc intéressant de tirer profit d’une pratique communicationnelle innovante, le Café scientifique. Ce projet de recherche analyse un Café scientifique ayant mis en scène en mars 2007 un échange entre quatre experts et environ 80 membres du public autour des enjeux relatifs aux innovations en santé. Les objectifs sont : 1) analyser l’application d’une intervention de type Café scientifique; et 2) analyser ses retombées sur les participants. Cette étude de cas unique s’appuie sur des données qualitatives et quantitatives: 1) observation semi-participative; 2) enregistrement audiovisuel de l’activité; 3) questionnaires distribués à la fin de l’activité; et 4) entrevues semi-dirigées (n=11) avec des participants. L’analyse intégrée de ces données permet de mieux comprendre comment le contexte est structurant pour le débat, décrit les principaux rôles adoptés par les participants lors des échanges, identifie les principaux enjeux relatifs aux innovations médicales qui ont été débattus et dégage les dynamiques qui favorisent ou nuisent à un dialogue entre des scientifiques et le public. Le Café scientifique est une pratique encore peu répandue, mais qui suscite un intérêt à la fois chez les chercheurs et les participants. / Medical innovations have significant influence on clinical practice, policy-making and public expectation towards the health care system. In the context of public health care systems, the cost of health innovation is a major barrier to its adoption even if they are often portrayed in the media as inherently desirable. Such a framing of the problem impedes the debate on what makes social and technological health innovations relevant from a population health perspective. Thus it is interesting to take advantage of an innovative communicational process, the Café scientifique. This research project analyzes a Café scientifique that took place in March 2007 which established a dialogue between four experts and around 80 members of the public on health innovation issues. The objectives are: 1) to analyze the application of the Café scientifique, and 2) to analyze its impact on participants. This single case study uses qualitative and quantitative data: 1) semi-participative observation; 2) audiovisual recording of the activity; 3) surveys distributed at the end of the activity; 4) semi-directed interviews (n=11) with participants. Integrated analysis of all data gives a better understanding of how the context is structuring for the debate, describes the main roles adopted by participants, identifies key health innovation issues that were discussed and highlights which features have facilitated or hindered a dialogue between scientists and the public. The Café scientifique is an unusual practice which stirs up interest of both researchers and participants.

L’objectif général de cette thèse de doctorat est de mieux comprendre comment le public interprète les nouvelles scientifiques portant sur la génétique humaine, plus précisément les nouvelles portant sur la génétique des comportements et celles portant sur la génétique des groupes raciaux. L’ouvrage prend la forme d’une thèse par article. Le Chapitre 1 introduit le lecteur aux buts et aux pratiques de la vulgarisation scientifique, présente un sommaire de la recherche sur les effets des médias, résume les principaux travaux produits par le champ de la génopolitique, et définit la structure des croyances du public à l’égard de l’influence de la génétique sur les traits humains. Le Chapitre 2 présente les fondements de la méthode expérimentale, il en explique les atouts et il offre des exemples de différents types de devis expérimentaux utilisés en science politique. Toutes les recherches produites dans cette thèse reposent au moins en partie sur cette méthode. Le Chapitre 3 présente les résultats d’une expérience de sondage qui vise à mesurer l’effet de la lecture d’une nouvelle à propos de la recherche en génétique des comportements sur des participants. L’étude démontre que le public interprète la nouvelle avec maladresse et tend à généraliser l’influence de la génétique à d’autres traits humains qui n’y sont pas mentionnés. J’avance l’hypothèse qu’un raccourci psychologique amplement documenté puisse expliquer cette réaction : l’heuristique de l’ancrage et de l’ajustement. Le Chapitre 4 présente lui aussi les résultats d’une expérience de sondage. L’étude consiste à manipuler certaines informations du contenu d’une nouvelle sur la génopolitique de manière à vérifier si certains éléments sont particulièrement susceptibles de mener à la généralisation hâtive mise en évidence dans le Chapitre 3. Les analyses suggèrent que cette généralisation est amplifiée lorsque la nouvelle présente de hauts niveaux d’héritabilité tirés d’études de jumeaux, ainsi que lorsqu’elle présente des travaux de génétique des populations visant à étudier l’origine des différences géographiques. Ce chapitre présente des recommandations à l’égard des journalistes scientifiques. Le Chapitre 5 s’intéresse à un aspect différent de la génétique humaine : celui de la génétique des races. L’objectif de cette recherche est de comprendre comment le public réagit aux travaux qui invalident l’idée selon laquelle les humains sont divisés en différentes races génétiquement distinctes. Les analyses de données transversales ainsi que les résultats d’une expérience de sondage convergent et indiquent que les conservateurs et les libéraux réagissent de manière diamétralement opposée à cette information. D’un côté, les libéraux acceptent le constat scientifique et réduisent leur impression que la génétique explique en partie les inégalités sociales; de l’autre, les conservateurs rejettent l’argument avec une intensité si forte que le rôle qu’ils attribuent aux différences génétiques s’en voit bonifié. Ces résultats sont interprétés à partir de la théorie du raisonnement motivé. Enfin, le Chapitre 6 résume les principaux constats, met en évidence les contributions que ma thèse apporte à la science politique et à la communication scientifique, et présente quelques pistes pour la recherche future. / The main objective of this doctoral thesis is to improve our understanding of how the public interprets scientific news about human genetics, specifically, behavioral genetics and the genetic underpinnings of racial groups. The core of the dissertation is a collection of three research articles and one book chapter. Chapter 1 introduces the readers to the goals and practices of science journalism, presents a summary of the literature on media effects, summarizes research on genopolitics, and discusses findings in public opinion on how people understand genetic influence on human characteristics. Chapter 2 presents the rationale behind the experimental method, explains its pros and cons, and provides examples of how different types of research designs have been used in political science. All the empirical evidence presented in this dissertation rests at least in part on experiments. Chapter 3 presents the results of a survey experiment that aims to measure the effects on individuals of reading a news article about behavioral genetics research. The study suggests that the public has difficulty in making sense of such research findings. The results show that participants tend to generalize the conclusions of one particular genetic study to other characteristics not mentioned by the study. I hypothesize that these results can be explained by a well-known and widely documented psychological process: the use of anchoring and adjustment heuristics. Chapter 4 presents the results of a second survey experiment. This experiment manipulates the content of a news article about behavioral genetics. The purpose of the manipulation is to test whether particular aspects of article’s message are more likely than others to cause the hasty generalizations revealed in Chapter 3. The findings show that the tendency to generalization is greater when the news presents high heritability estimates derived from twin studies or insights from research using population genetics methods to account for aggregate geographic difference. Based on these findings, the chapter develops recommendations for science journalists interested in covering behavioral genetics. Chapter 5 focuses on a different field of human genetic research, namely, that investigating the genetic bases of racial differences. The chapter’s aim is to improve our understanding of how the public reacts when exposed to scientific claims arguing against the idea that that human beings belong to different, genetically distinct races. Both cross sectional survey data and experimental data suggest that conservatives and liberals react to this information in opposing ways. Liberals tend to accept such arguments and temper their beliefs that genetic differences account for racial inequalities. By contrast, conservatives reject the arguments so strongly that exposure to them actually strengthens these citizens’ beliefs that genetics explain a proportion of racial inequality. These results are interpreted from the perspective of motivated reasoning theory. Finally, Chapter 6 summarizes the main findings of the doctoral dissertation, highlights its contribution to the discipline of political science and the field of science communication, and suggests directions for future research.

Submitted by Maria Bernadete Dos Santos (mariabpds@id.uff.br) on 2017-09-25T19:20:27Z No. of bitstreams: 3 license_rdf: 0 bytes, checksum: d41d8cd98f00b204e9800998ecf8427e (MD5) Dissertação Luiz Felipe.pdf: 4162079 bytes, checksum: cb27d8054783585c55d940632924aaaf (MD5) Produto Luiz Felipe.pdf: 1716747 bytes, checksum: 83f47f7945483408504e472a8c71e1bb (MD5) / Approved for entry into archive by Biblioteca Central do Valonguinho Biblioteca Central do Valonguinho (bcv@ndc.uff.br) on 2017-10-06T15:15:53Z (GMT) No. of bitstreams: 3 license_rdf: 0 bytes, checksum: d41d8cd98f00b204e9800998ecf8427e (MD5) Dissertação Luiz Felipe.pdf: 4162079 bytes, checksum: cb27d8054783585c55d940632924aaaf (MD5) Produto Luiz Felipe.pdf: 1716747 bytes, checksum: 83f47f7945483408504e472a8c71e1bb (MD5) / Made available in DSpace on 2017-10-06T15:15:53Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 3 license_rdf: 0 bytes, checksum: d41d8cd98f00b204e9800998ecf8427e (MD5) Dissertação Luiz Felipe.pdf: 4162079 bytes, checksum: cb27d8054783585c55d940632924aaaf (MD5) Produto Luiz Felipe.pdf: 1716747 bytes, checksum: 83f47f7945483408504e472a8c71e1bb (MD5) / O trabalho surgiu por acreditar no elo entre os novos instrumentos tecnológicos e a divulgação científica e na sua contribuição para a melhora no acesso aos centros e museus de ciência, a fim de que a população enriqueça seus conhecimentos através do incentivo à educação não formal. Dessa forma, o objetivo geral em questão foi o desenvolvimento de um aplicativo móvel totalmente gratuito para smartphones e tablets, o Cata Ciência, que tem como finalidade principal a busca pela localização de centros e museus de ciência do Estado do Rio de Janeiro. No trabalho, foram levantadas as principais condições da divulgação científica para a população em geral, a importância dos centros e museus de ciência, a forma como os recursos midiáticos interveem nesse processo de popularização e a apresentação de um método para avaliação da usabilidade nas ferramentas que auxiliam nos recursos tecnológicos. Além de apresentar os resultados e as etapas de todo o trabalho realizado passando pelos processos de investigação, produção do aplicativo, teste de usabilidade e divulgação. O retorno positivo dos usuários, número de acessos e divulgação nos meios de comunicação indicam que o Cata Ciência é uma ferramenta que tem sido reconhecida no sentido de facilitar a busca por informações e o acesso a esses espaços científicos de forma rápida e ágil. / The current paper came from believing in the link between the new technological tools and science communication and its contribution to improve access to centers and science museums, in order to people enrich their knowledge by encouraging non-formal education. Thus, the overall goal in question was the development of a totally free mobile application for smartphones and tablets: Cata Ciência, which main purpose is search for scientific centers and museums located at Rio de Janeiro. On this paper, has been taken into consideration conditions of science communication for the general population, the importance of centers and science museums, the way media helps in the process of popularization and presentation of a method for evaluating the tools attendance in technological resources usability, and presents the results and steps of all work done during the research process, application production, usability testing and disclosure. Through positive feedback from users and media and the quality of work, it has been recognized as a great educational resource and the access numbers shows an increase in the interest, suggesting the app is meeting its goals. Thereby, it was noticed that Cata Ciência is a relevant tool to ease the search for information and access to scientific areas quickly and expeditiously.

<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.

No description available.

Les innovations médicales ont un impact considérable sur les pratiques cliniques, sur la formulation des politiques et sur les attentes du public envers le système de santé. Dans un contexte de système de santé public, les conséquences économiques importantes des innovations médicales freinent grandement leur adoption alors qu’elles sont souvent représentées dans les médias comme étant hautement désirables. Une telle définition de la problématique limite le débat sur ce qui rend les innovations sociales et technologiques en santé pertinentes d’un point de vue de santé des populations. Il apparaît donc intéressant de tirer profit d’une pratique communicationnelle innovante, le Café scientifique. Ce projet de recherche analyse un Café scientifique ayant mis en scène en mars 2007 un échange entre quatre experts et environ 80 membres du public autour des enjeux relatifs aux innovations en santé. Les objectifs sont : 1) analyser l’application d’une intervention de type Café scientifique; et 2) analyser ses retombées sur les participants. Cette étude de cas unique s’appuie sur des données qualitatives et quantitatives: 1) observation semi-participative; 2) enregistrement audiovisuel de l’activité; 3) questionnaires distribués à la fin de l’activité; et 4) entrevues semi-dirigées (n=11) avec des participants. L’analyse intégrée de ces données permet de mieux comprendre comment le contexte est structurant pour le débat, décrit les principaux rôles adoptés par les participants lors des échanges, identifie les principaux enjeux relatifs aux innovations médicales qui ont été débattus et dégage les dynamiques qui favorisent ou nuisent à un dialogue entre des scientifiques et le public. Le Café scientifique est une pratique encore peu répandue, mais qui suscite un intérêt à la fois chez les chercheurs et les participants. / Medical innovations have significant influence on clinical practice, policy-making and public expectation towards the health care system. In the context of public health care systems, the cost of health innovation is a major barrier to its adoption even if they are often portrayed in the media as inherently desirable. Such a framing of the problem impedes the debate on what makes social and technological health innovations relevant from a population health perspective. Thus it is interesting to take advantage of an innovative communicational process, the Café scientifique. This research project analyzes a Café scientifique that took place in March 2007 which established a dialogue between four experts and around 80 members of the public on health innovation issues. The objectives are: 1) to analyze the application of the Café scientifique, and 2) to analyze its impact on participants. This single case study uses qualitative and quantitative data: 1) semi-participative observation; 2) audiovisual recording of the activity; 3) surveys distributed at the end of the activity; 4) semi-directed interviews (n=11) with participants. Integrated analysis of all data gives a better understanding of how the context is structuring for the debate, describes the main roles adopted by participants, identifies key health innovation issues that were discussed and highlights which features have facilitated or hindered a dialogue between scientists and the public. The Café scientifique is an unusual practice which stirs up interest of both researchers and participants.

No description available.