Abstract
After documenting the existence and exploring some implications of three alternative news narratives about science and its challenges, this essay outlines ways in which those who communicate science can more accurately convey its investigatory process, self-correcting norms, and remedial actions, without in the process legitimizing an unwarranted “science is broken/in crisis” narrative. The three storylines are: (i) quest discovery, which features scientists producing knowledge through an honorable journey; (ii) counterfeit quest discovery, which centers on an individual or group of scientists producing a spurious finding through a dishonorable one; and (iii) a systemic problem structure, which suggests that some of the practices that protect science are broken, or worse, that science is no longer self-correcting or in crisis.
Publisher
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Reference100 articles.
1. The Evolution of Agenda-Setting Research: Twenty-Five Years in the Marketplace of Ideas
2. Framing, agenda setting, and priming: The evolution of three media effects models;Scheufele;J Commun,2006
3. Does a scientific breakthrough increase confidence in science? News of a Zika vaccine and trust in science;Hilgard;Sci Commun,2017
4. Reproducibility in Science
5. Ioannidis JP (2017) Statistical biases in science communication: What we know about them and how they can be addressed. The Oxford Handbook of the Science of Science Communication, eds Jamieson KH Kahan D Scheufele DA (Oxford Univ Press, New York), pp 103–110.
Cited by
51 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献