Communicating scientific uncertainty of emerging technologies in life sciences

该项目的目的是分析在科学证据被视为特别不确定的领域中，公众对科学发现的传播过程。在下一个供资期内，将继续并完善关于科学不确定性的公众交流总体模式的工作。 正如在过去两个资助期，我们的模型将考虑科学家，非新闻传播者（代表不同的利益集团），科学记者，在大众媒体中的科学不确定性的介绍，科学外行作为科学传播的接受者。基于过去两个资助期（分子医学和纳米技术）分析的主题，我们现在将把重点扩大到生命科学领域的新兴技术，作为一个主题领域，以便对结果进行更全面的解释。基于研究现状（包括我们自己的工作）和计划行为理论的理论假设，我们打算1）复制探索性分析的第一个发现，该分析涉及非新闻传播者和科学记者在科学不确定性方面的传播行为。与上一个供资期间使用的定性方法不同，数据的代表性将是目标。2)将更详细地分析来自分子医学（第1阶段）和纳米技术（第2阶段）媒体报道的两个定量内容分析的数据，特别关注媒体报道的新闻质量和科学不确定性的描述。3)关于科学界的外行人，我们将继续通过实验研究传播科学不确定性的媒体报道对科学本质和科学证据的一般信念的影响，同时考虑到接受媒体报道后人际传播的影响。此外，还将进行更多的定性分析，重点关注个人需求、媒体使用动机和对科学媒体报道的评价。研究方法和工具的统一以及对不同研究结果的综合解释，使得能够对所有相关利益攸关方之间的相互依存关系进行全面分析。因此，我们能够比较同行群体的具体理性的非新闻传播者和科学记者关于科学的不确定性的介绍。此外，科学传播者对受众的假设与受众的实际需求、动机、态度和对科学媒体的评价相匹配是可能的。通过比较科学记者的调查结果与内容分析的结果，可以评估新闻质量标准的相关性和实施情况。

The aim of this project is to analyze the process of public communication about scientific findings in domains in which scientific evidence can be seen as especially uncertain. During the next funding period the work on the overall model of public communication of scientific uncertainties shall be continued and refined. Just as in the last two funding periods, our model will take into account scientists, non-journalistic communicators (representing different interest groups), science journalists, the presentation of scientific uncertainty in mass media, and scientific laypersons as recipients of science communication. Based on the topics analyzed in the last two funding periods (molecular medicine and nanotechnology), we will now broaden our focus to emerging technologies in the field of life science as a thematic domain, allowing for more global interpretations of the results. Based on the state of research (including our own work), and the theoretical assumptions of the theory of planned behavior, we intend to 1) replicate the first findings from explorative analyses concerning the communication behavior of non-journalistic communicators and science journalists with respect to scientific uncertainties. In contrast to the qualitative methods used in the past funding period, the representativeness of the data will be the goal. 2) The data at hand from the two quantitative content analyses of media coverage of molecular medicine (phase1) and nanotechnology (phase 2) will be analyzed in more detail, with a special focus on the journalistic quality of the media reports and the depiction of scientific uncertainty. 3) With respect to scientific laypeople, we will continue to experimentally study the effects of media reports communicating scientific uncertainties on the general beliefs about the nature of science and scientific evidence, also taking into account the impact of interpersonal communication after the reception of the media reports. Additionally, more qualitative analyses will be conducted focusing on individual needs, motives of media use, and appraisals of science media reports. The harmonization of research methods and instruments, as well as the combined interpretation of results across the different studies allows for a global analysis of interdependencies between all involved stakeholders. We are thus able to compare the peer-group specific rationalities of non-journalistic communicators and science journalists concerning the presentation of scientific uncertainty. Furthermore, it is possible to match the assumptions of science communicators about their audience with the factual needs, motives, attitudes, and appraisals of science media by their recipients. By comparing the results from the survey among science journalists with the findings from the content analysis, the relevance and implementation of journalistic quality criteria can be assessed.