Intermediate science knowledge predicts overconfidence

Lackner et al. found science overconfidence peaks at intermediate levels of knowledge. Those with intermediate knowledge also hold the most negative attitudes toward scientists. In doing so, they provide a novel measure of overconfidence that measures the tendency to give incorrect answers as opposed to answering, 'I don't know'.

Individual differences in scientists' aesthetic disposition, aesthetic experiences, and aesthetic sensitivity in scientific work

Introduction

The role of personality in shaping engagement with aesthetics in science has been almost entirely unexplored. Whereas artists and arts settings (e.g., museums) are well-studied from a psychological perspective, the practice of science has often been seen as purely rational or dry. In response, this study presents novel findings on the critical role of scientists' individual differences, which shape their engagement with aesthetics, such as the frequency of their experiences of beauty, wonder, and awe in their scientific work.

Methods

Based on a very large and representative four-country study of scientists in the fields of biology and physics (N = 3,092), this study analyzed the associations of Big Five personality traits among scientists with (i) dispositional aesthetics (DPES-awe), (ii) the frequency of aesthetic experiences in scientific work, and (iii) aesthetic sensitivity in science. These survey-weighted OLS regression models included extensive statistical controls for sociodemographic factors.

Results

As hypothesized, openness is positively, and neuroticism is negatively linked with dispositional aesthetics, the frequency of aesthetic experiences in scientific work, and aesthetic sensitivity in science. Unexpectedly, agreeableness and conscientiousness (but not extraversion) are highly significant and strong predictors of the three trait and state aesthetic engagement variables.

Discussion

The aesthetic engagement and personality framework of this paper is empirically supported and demonstrates the importance of personality types of scientists in the practice of science. The unexpectedly strong association of agreeableness with aesthetic engagement points to the importance of cooperation, collaboration, and communication to maximize scientific creativity.

Science communication on Twitter: Measuring indicators of engagement and their links to user interaction in communication scholars' Tweet content

Scientists increasingly use Twitter for communication about science. The microblogging service has been heralded for its potential to foster public engagement with science; thus, measuring how engaging, that is dialogue-oriented, tweet content is, has become a relevant research object. Tweet content designed in an engaging, dialogue-oriented way is also supposed to link to user interaction (e.g. liking, retweeting). The present study analyzed content-related and functional indicators of engagement in scientists' tweet content, applying content analysis to original tweets (n = 2884) of 212 communication scholars. Findings show that communication scholars tweet mostly about scientific topics, with, however, low levels of engagement. User interaction, nevertheless, correlated with content-related and functional indicators of engagement. The findings are discussed in light of their implications for public engagement with science.

Global indicators framework for socially responsible research and innovation (RRI): Aligning standards to monitor public and researcher perspectives with the UNESCO Recommendation on Science and Scientific Researchers

As calls for more socially responsible research and innovation (RRI) policies and practices grow more insistent, the need for high-quality indicators that can be used to evaluate progress is becoming increasingly important. Given the global nature of science, such indicators need to be relevant to countries across all world regions. Moreover, the methodological quality of indicators is critical to provide a strong foundation for long-term comparative measurement of the impacts of different kinds of policy intervention. There is a practical challenge here, given the uneven mechanisms for data collection and analysis available in different countries. There is also a geopolitical challenge in gaining buy-in from countries with very different, and sometimes competing, agendas. Here, the 2017 UNESCO-led Recommendation on Science and Scientific Researchers is highlighted as an existing vehicle that can enable cooperation on globally comparative measurement of socially responsible research and innovation. In particular, the quadrennial monitoring of the implementation of this wide-ranging global policy instrument that has been ratified by 195 countries affords a unique opportunity to add value for these countries by linking RRI to the 2017 Recommendation while establishing benchmark indicators for RRI more generally. As a practical and methodological contribution to the global community of science and innovation policymakers, researchers and research and innovation stakeholders committed to socially responsible research, this report contains detailed survey questions and response options focusing on public opinion and individual researchers' level of measurement. It provides details of sources of benchmark survey data that have readily available open data that can be used to benchmark the development of socially responsible research and innovation over time from the vantage points of the public and researchers around the world. The aim of this kind of science ecosystem-level indicators framework is to enable evidence-based practice in socially responsible research and innovation.

Global indicators framework for socially responsible research and innovation (RRI): Aligning standards to monitor public and researcher perspectives with the UNESCO Recommendation on Science and Scientific Researchers

As calls for more socially responsible research and innovation (RRI) policies and practices grow more insistent, the need for high-quality indicators that can be used to evaluate progress is becoming increasingly important. Given the global nature of science, such indicators need to be relevant to countries across all world regions. Moreover, the methodological quality of indicators is critical to provide a strong foundation for long-term comparative measurement of the impacts of different kinds of policy intervention. There is a practical challenge here, given the uneven mechanisms for data collection and analysis available in different countries. There is also a geopolitical challenge in gaining buy-in from countries with very different, and sometimes competing, agendas. Here, the 2017 UNESCO-led Recommendation on Science and Scientific Researchers is highlighted as an existing vehicle that can enable cooperation on globally comparative measurement of socially responsible research and innovation. In particular, the quadrennial monitoring of the implementation of this wide-ranging global policy instrument that has been ratified by 195 countries affords a unique opportunity to add value for these countries by linking RRI to the 2017 Recommendation while establishing benchmark indicators for RRI more generally. As a practical and methodological contribution to the global community of science and innovation policymakers, researchers and research and innovation stakeholders committed to socially responsible research, this report contains detailed survey questions and response options focusing on public opinion and individual researchers' level of measurement. It provides details of sources of benchmark survey data that have readily available open data that can be used to benchmark the development of socially responsible research and innovation over time from the vantage points of the public and researchers around the world. The aim of this kind of science ecosystem-level indicators framework is to enable evidence-based practice in socially responsible research and innovation.

Talk To A Scientist: a Framework for a Webinar-Based Outreach Program for Scientists to Engage with K-12 Students

Science outreach programs that enable real-time interactions between scientists and school-aged children are known to positively impact learning gains and students' perceptions of scientists. To expand K-12 outreach by scientists, it is important to build structured outreach programs which offer scientists well-defined opportunities, while providing school students regular and diverse interactions. We describe Talk To A Scientist, a science outreach platform in India, where scientists use a webinar-based approach to share their research with K-12 students (6 to 16 years). Running weekly for nearly 3 years, Talk To A Scientist has hosted over 100 live interactions, with a wide reach to participants across the country. Here, we outline the framework used to build Talk To A Scientist and discuss key gains, considerations, and challenges in the development of the program. We also suggest potential adaptations with which this framework can serve as a guideline for the implementation of similar K-12 outreach programs across diverse country- and context-specific settings.

Linking policy and practice in monitoring socially responsible research and innovation (RRI): A conceptual framework to evaluate progress through the UNESCO-led Recommendation on Science and Scientific Researchers

This paper sets out a high-level conceptual framework for monitoring the development of socially responsible research and innovation (RRI) systems linked to the global policy instrument called 'the Recommendation on Science and Scientific Researchers' (RSSR). RRI is an umbrella concept, rooted in EU policy and research, that encompasses a range of topics that overlap directly with the RSSR. These topics include social inclusion in scientific research, improved scientific transparency and governance and expanded public engagement with science. The RSSR is an international accord ratified by 195 United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) Member States in 2017, updating an earlier version of the instrument. This UNESCO-led initiative offers a globally inclusive and agreed structure for advancing RRI-related principles. A key feature of the RSSR initiative is its permanent structure of quadrennial monitoring to assess implementation of its principles. Here, a conceptual framework is presented to clarify the specific dimensions of RRI embedded in the 10 key priority areas for this quadrennial monitoring process. The paper explicates these dimensions and the underpinning policy language from the 2017 recommendation with the aim of supporting UNESCO Member States and research stakeholders globally to design appropriate evaluation methods. This conceptual framework is intended to support development of globally aligned measurement of RRI policy and practice that allows research and policy stakeholders from each world region to learn from each other. Fostering mutual learning on a global scale will help to enable evidence-based practice in the context of RRI to improve outcomes and mitigate the limitations of well-meaning but ineffective policies and practices.

Linking policy and practice in monitoring socially responsible research and innovation (RRI): A conceptual framework to evaluate progress through the UNESCO-led Recommendation on Science and Scientific Researchers

This paper sets out a high-level conceptual framework for monitoring the development of socially responsible research and innovation (RRI) systems linked to the global policy instrument called 'the Recommendation on Science and Scientific Researchers' (RSSR). RRI is an umbrella concept, rooted in EU policy and research, that encompasses a range of topics that overlap directly with the RSSR. These topics include social inclusion in scientific research, improved scientific transparency and governance and expanded public engagement with science. The RSSR is an international accord ratified by 195 United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) Member States in 2017, updating an earlier version of the instrument. This UNESCO-led initiative offers a globally inclusive and agreed structure for advancing RRI-related principles. A key feature of the RSSR initiative is its permanent structure of quadrennial monitoring to assess implementation of its principles. Here, a conceptual framework is presented to clarify the specific dimensions of RRI embedded in the 10 key priority areas for this quadrennial monitoring process. The paper explicates these dimensions and the underpinning policy language from the 2017 recommendation with the aim of supporting UNESCO Member States and research stakeholders globally to design appropriate evaluation methods. This conceptual framework is intended to support development of globally aligned measurement of RRI policy and practice that allows research and policy stakeholders from each world region to learn from each other. Fostering mutual learning on a global scale will help to enable evidence-based practice in the context of RRI to improve outcomes and mitigate the limitations of well-meaning but ineffective policies and practices.

A triangulated approach for understanding scientists' perceptions of public engagement with science

Scientists are expected to engage with the public, especially when society faces challenges like the COVID-19 pandemic or climate change, but what public engagement means to scientists is not clear. We use a triangulated, mixed-methods approach combining survey and focus group data to gain insight into how pre-tenure and tenured scientists personally conceptualize public engagement. Our findings indicate that scientists' understanding of public engagement is similarly complex and diverse as the scholarly literature. While definitions and examples of one-way forms of engagement are the most salient for scientists, regardless of tenure status, scientists also believe public engagement with science includes two-way forms of engagement, such as citizen and community involvement in research. These findings suggest that clear definitions of public engagement are not necessarily required for its application but may be useful to guide scientists in their engagement efforts, so they align with what is expected of them.

KIBRA Gene Variant Is Associated with Ability in Chess and Science

The kidney and brain expressed protein (KIBRA) plays an important role in synaptic plasticity. Carriers of the T allele of the KIBRA (WWC1) gene rs17070145 C/T polymorphism have been reported to have enhanced spatial ability and to outperform individuals with the CC genotype in working memory tasks. Since ability in chess and science is directly related to spatial ability and working memory, we hypothesized that the KIBRA T allele would be positively associated with chess player status and PhD status in science. We tested this hypothesis in a study involving 2479 individuals (194 chess players, 119 PhD degree holders in STEM fields, and 2166 controls; 1417 males and 1062 females) from three ethnicities (236 Kazakhs, 1583 Russians, 660 Tatars). We found that frequencies of the T allele were significantly higher in Kazakh (66.9 vs. 55.1%; p = 0.024), Russian (44.8 vs. 32.0%; p = 0.0027), and Tatar (51.5 vs. 41.8%; p = 0.035) chess players compared with ethnically matched controls (meta-analysis for CT/TT vs. CC: OR = 2.05, p = 0.0001). In addition, none of the international chess grandmasters (ranked among the 80 best chess players in the world) were carriers of the CC genotype (0 vs. 46.3%; OR = 16.4, p = 0.005). Furthermore, Russian and Tatar PhD holders had a significantly higher frequency of CT/TT genotypes compared with controls (meta-analysis: OR = 1.71, p = 0.009). Overall, this is the first study to provide comprehensive evidence that the rs17070145 C/T polymorphism of the KIBRA gene may be associated with ability in chess and science, with the T allele exerting a beneficial effect.

Children's perceptions of scientists and their work: The 'Draw a Scientist' Test in the United Arab Emirates

Sampling students in the UAE's capital Abu Dhabi, we explored possible stereotypes of scientists and their work which may exist, and which may impact upon future career aspirations. Characteristics of scientists were identified and analysed from 234 drawings collected from upper primary aged students. Students tended to draw youthful scientists of their own gender, with stereotypical characteristics, such as wearing a lab coat, performing chemistry experiments and working alone in a lab. Unexpectedly, there were even fewer references to technology use in science than in similar studies carried out in the 1980s. We had anticipated that some elements of UAE national dress would be observed in drawings, since the majority of students were UAE Nationals, but no UAE cultural references were evident in the drawings at all. The findings suggest that work needs to be undertaken in UAE classrooms to increase perceptions of diversity of science work and scientists themselves.

When Lack of Trust in the Government and in Scientists Reinforces Social Inequalities in Vaccination Against COVID-19

Objective

To assess whether lack of trust in the government and scientists reinforces social and racial inequalities in vaccination practices.

Design

A follow-up of the EpiCov random population-based cohort survey.

Setting

In July 2021, in France.

Participants

Eighty-thousand nine hundred and seventy-one participants aged 18 years and more.

Main Outcome Measures

Adjusted odds ratios of COVID-19 vaccination status (received at least one dose/ intends to get vaccinated/ does not know whether to get vaccinated/refuses vaccination) were assessed using multinomial regressions to test associations with social and trust factors and to study how these two factors interacted with each other.

Results

In all, 72.2% were vaccinated at the time of the survey. The population of unvaccinated people was younger, less educated, had lower incomes, and more often belonged to racially minoritized groups, as compared to vaccinated people. Lack of trust in the government and scientists to curb the spread of the epidemic were the factors most associated with refusing to be vaccinated: OR = 8.86 (7.13 to 11.00) for the government and OR = 9.07 (7.71 to 10.07) for scientists, compared to vaccinated people. Lack of trust was more prevalent among the poorest which consequently reinforced social inequalities in vaccination. The poorest 10% who did not trust the government reached an OR of 16.2 (11.9 to 22.0) for refusing to be vaccinated compared to the richest 10% who did.

Conclusion

There is a need to develop depoliticised outreach programmes targeted at the most socially disadvantaged groups, and to design vaccination strategies conceived with people from different social and racial backgrounds to enable them to make fully informed choices.

How have COVID-19 stringency measures changed scholarly activity?

Government restrictions to the movement of people due to the COVID-19 pandemic have had a wide range of effects on scientific activity. Here, we show that during the pandemic there has been a reduction in the number of registered non-COVID-19 clinical trials. Furthermore, using the Oxford COVID-19 Government Response Tracker Stringency Index (SI) as an indicator of COVID-19-related workplace adjustment (e.g., restrictions on gatherings, workplace closures, and stay-at-home orders), we demonstrate that this drop in clinical trial registration has been greater in countries with a higher SI. This could have significant consequences for the discovery of treatments that are required to reduce the global burden of disease.

Exploring scholars' public engagement goals in Canada and the United States

We have little systematic knowledge about scholars' goals for public engagement in the academic literature. This study therefore provides a secondary analysis of two surveys of scholars that included closed-ended questions about goals. One survey from 2017 was from a sample of Canadian grant recipients from a federal science funding agency, while the second survey from 2018 comes from a sample of professors at top American research universities. The focus of this research is on both presenting novel data about scholars' expressed goals and exploring the relationships between these goals and potential predictors of these goals, including demographics, past engagement behavior, and overall views about public engagement. Areas for future research are then described.

Preference of saliva over other body fluids as samples for clinical and laboratory investigations among healthcare workers in Ibadan, Nigeria

Introduction

The study aimed to assess the knowledge and practices of clinicians and laboratory scientists on the use of saliva for clinical or laboratory tests.

Methods

This was a cross-sectional survey of health care workers (100 clinicians and 62 laboratory scientists) closely involved with specimen collection for clinical and laboratory investigation at two health facilities (secondary and tertiary) in Nigeria. Information was obtained from participants using pretested structured questionnaires. Data were analyzed with SPSS and level of significance set at p < 5%.

Results

The mean age of the study participants was 34.1 (±6.6) years. The majority (95.7%) knew saliva could be used for clinical/laboratory test. A higher proportion of laboratory scientists knew saliva could be used in diagnosing HIV (59.2%), oral diseases (88.7%), oro-facial tumors (64.4%) and genetic testing (94.5%) compared to (41%), (80%), (40%) and (80%), of clinicians respectively (p < 0.05). More clinicians (85%) indicated saliva as a good specimen for diagnosing systemic diseases compared with scientists (63%), p < 0.001. Saliva was the most comfortable/convenient body fluid to obtain from patients with more clinicians (80%) mentioning this than scientists (49.1%), p < 0.001. Twenty-six clinicians had used saliva for disease diagnosis (64%), treatment monitoring (28%) or research purposes (8%). Saliva sampling for research purposes was more prevalent among clinicians (p = 0.004).

Conclusion

The majority of the health care workers knew the various uses and advantages of saliva as a specimen for clinical and laboratory investigation. However, few indicated previous use for clinical and laboratory investigation especially in the area of research.

Experiments in Lay Cues to the Relative Validity of Positions Taken by Disputing Groups of Scientists

Risk analysis and hazard management can prompt varied intra-scientific disputes, some which have or will become public, and thus potentially available for lay judgments of the relative validity of the positions taken. As attentive laypeople may include elites as well as the general public, understanding whether and how cues to credibility of disputing groups of scientists might shape those lay judgments can be important. Relevant literatures from philosophy, social studies of science, risk analysis, and elsewhere have identified potential cues, but not tested their absolute or relative effects. Two experiments with U.S. online panel members tested multiple cues (e.g., credentials, experience, majority opinions, research quality) across topics varying in familiarity subject to actual intra-science disputes (dark matter, marijuana, sea-level rise). If cues supported a position, laypeople were more likely to choose it as relatively more valid, with information quality, majority "vote," experience, and degree source as the strongest, and interest, demographic, and values similarity as the weakest, cues. These results were similar in overall rankings to those from implicit rankings of cue reliability ratings from an earlier U.S. online survey. Proposed moderators were generally nonsignificant, but topic familiarity and subjective topic knowledge tended to reduce cue effects. Further research to confirm and extend these findings can inform both theory about citizen engagement with scientific and risk disputes, and practice in communication about science and risk.

Development of an Innovative Career Development Program for Early-Career Women Faculty

Objective

Our institutional Women in Medicine & Science Program (formerly the Office of Women in Medicine and Science) developed the Early Career Development Program for Women to promote the careers of women faculty. At 6 monthly sessions, participants learn relevant content (imposter syndrome, strengths, change style, career management, assertive communication, feedback, personal influence, conflict management, negotiation, importance of mentors, resilience, and self-care); exchange ideas; and expand their professional networks. Here, we report changes in participants' career skills/knowledge, confidence, and perceptions of the current environment after attending the program.

Method

Between 2014 and 2017, participants (N = 65) completed pre- and post-program surveys that assessed career knowledge and skills, confidence, and perceptions of the current environment and provided program feedback.

Results

Most skills showed pre-post significant improvement. The greatest increases occurred in knowing paths to promotion, tailoring communication style, ability to manage conflict, and ability to handle personal-professional role balance. Women reported a significant increase for all items measuring confidence. Among these items, establishing networks, understanding institutional culture, providing feedback, motivating others, strategic planning, delegating, and conflict management had the largest increases. Overall, 89.3% of respondents rated the program impact as very strong/profound, 98.5% rated the concepts as essential, 95.2% rated the skills as essential, and 90.8% rated the sense of community with women in their class as very/extremely close.

Conclusions

Work-related skills/knowledge, confidence, and perceptions of the current environment increased significantly among program participants. These early-career women faculty indicated that the program augmented the skills needed to develop their careers in an academic medical center.

Cajal, Psychologist of Science

This paper presents abundant empirical evidence to support the view that Santiago Ramón y Cajal was a pioneer of the emerging Psychology of Science discipline. Narrative analysis of his autobiography (Recollections of my Life) and some of his unspecialized works (Advice for a Young Investigator, The World from an Eighty-Year-Old's Point of View, and Café Chats) revealed that the Spanish histologist's interest in the psychology of scientists was part and parcel of a high-level, intellectual self-regulation strategy he applied on his path to success. This research led him to document various psychological conclusions about scientists in writing, so as to encourage, guide, and facilitate the work of junior researchers. Current knowledge of the Psychology of Science has confirmed many of the Nobel laureate's observations about psychosocial aspects of scientists, scientific reasoning, and creativity.

Who Believes in the Storybook Image of the Scientist?

Do lay people and scientists themselves recognize that scientists are human and therefore prone to human fallibilities such as error, bias, and even dishonesty? In a series of three experimental studies and one correlational study (total N = 3,278) we found that the “storybook image of the scientist” is pervasive: American lay people and scientists from over 60 countries attributed considerably more objectivity, rationality, open-mindedness, intelligence, integrity, and communality to scientists than to other highly-educated people. Moreover, scientists perceived even larger differences than lay people did. Some groups of scientists also differentiated between different categories of scientists: established scientists attributed higher levels of the scientific traits to established scientists than to early-career scientists and Ph.D. students, and higher levels to Ph.D. students than to early-career scientists. Female scientists attributed considerably higher levels of the scientific traits to female scientists than to male scientists. A strong belief in the storybook image and the (human) tendency to attribute higher levels of desirable traits to people in one’s own group than to people in other groups may decrease scientists’ willingness to adopt recently proposed practices to reduce error, bias and dishonesty in science.

Are Leadership and Management Essential for Good Research? An Interview Study of Genetic Researchers

Principal investigators are responsible for a myriad of leadership and management activities in their work. The practices they use to navigate these responsibilities ultimately influence the quality and integrity of research. However, leadership and management roles in research have received scant empirical examination. Semi-structured interviews with 32 National Institutes of Health (NIH)-funded genetic researchers revealed that they considered leadership and management essential for effective research, but their scientific training inadequately prepared them. We also report management practices that the researchers described using in their labs, as well as their perceptions of a proposed intervention to enhance laboratory leadership. These findings suggest best practices for the research community, future directions for scientific training, and implications for research on leadership and management in science.

Stakeholders' rationales for representing uncertainties of biotechnological research

Although various stakeholders are involved in public communication about science and technology, research so far has focused on scientists, journalists, and the public. Based on representative telephone surveys of the spokespersons of 55 German companies, 31 government agencies, 43 public interest groups, as well as 105 scientists, we investigated actors' intentions to point out the scientific uncertainty of biotechnological research in their public communications. The different groups of actors' intentions to mention uncertain aspects of biotechnological research in public are guided by different rationales. Scientists and company representatives' intentions to point out uncertainty are strengthened by their hope to promote biotechnological research and weakened by their fear to increase public criticism. Public interest groups' intentions are strengthened by their hope to increase public criticism and are weakened by their fear to promote biotechnological research. Representatives of government agencies are predominantly influenced by their will to do justice to their organizations' interests.

Assessing a Science Graduate School Recruitment Symposium

Ciencia Puerto Rico, a non-profit organization dedicated to promoting science, research and scientific education among Latinos, organized an educational symposium to provide college science majors the tools, opportunities and advice to pursue graduate degrees and succeed in the STEM disciplines. In this article we share our experiences and lessons learned, for others interested in developing large-scale events to recruit underrepresented minorities to STEM and in evaluating the effectiveness of these efforts.

Ending overly broad HIV criminalization: Canadian scientists and clinicians stand for justice

In Canada, people living with HIV who do not disclose their HIV status prior to sexual acts risk prosecution for aggravated sexual assault even if they have sex with a condom or while having a low (or undetectable) viral load, they had no intent to transmit HIV, and no transmission occurred. In 2013, six distinguished Canadian HIV scientists and clinicians took ground-breaking action to advance justice by co-authoring the “Canadian consensus statement on HIV and its transmission in the context of the criminal law.” This effort was born out of the belief that the application of criminal law to HIV non-disclosure was being driven by a poor appreciation of the science of HIV. More than 75 HIV scientists and clinicians Canada-wide have now endorsed the statement, agreeing that “[they] have a professional and ethical responsibility to assist those in the criminal justice system to understand and interpret current medical and scientific evidence regarding HIV.” As some 61 countries have adopted laws that specifically allow for HIV criminalization, and prosecutions for HIV non-disclosure, exposure and transmission have been reported in at least 49 countries, the authors hope that others around the world will take similar action.

Professionals' attitudes regarding large-scale genetic information generated through next generation sequencing in research: a pilot study

Under the auspices of a multi-national European scientific project involving whole genome sequencing, GEUVADIS, we set out to investigate the attitudes of the participating scientists of having their own genome sequenced. The views of such researchers on this subject have not been fully explored before and we utilized questionnaires and discussion groups to elicit their opinions. Many said that it was the first time that they had an opportunity to discuss ethical and social issues about sequencing. The many ongoing multi-national science projects present a good opportunity for social science research involving scientists and would benefit from rigorous research methodology, taking into account any language barriers.

Between the bench, the bedside and the office: The need to build bridges between working neuroscientists and ethicists

This paper presents findings from an empirical study that explored the meaning of ethics in the everyday work of neuroscientists. Observation and interviews were carried out in one neuroscience research group that was involved in bench-to-bedside translational research. We focus here specifically on the scientists’ perceptions of bioethics. Interviewees were often unfamiliar with bioethics as a discipline, particularly the more junior members of the group. Those who were aware of its existence largely viewed it as something distant from them, and as either too abstract, not relevant or an alien imposition on their work. Some interviewees themselves pointed to the need for better ‘bridge building’ between ethical principles and real-world examples drawn from scientific practice, and we argue that this space is where a more empirically grounded ethics may be useful in terms of actually engaging scientists at both the bench and the bedside.

Rethinking the relationship between science and society: Has there been a shift in attitudes to Patient and Public Involvement and Public Engagement in Science in the United Kingdom?

Background

The policy imperative to engage the public and patients in research can be seen as part of a wider shift in the research environment. This study addresses the question: Has there been a shift in attitudes to Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) and Public Engagement in Science (PES) amongst researchers?

Methods

Attitudes to PPI and PES within a cluster of three NIHR supported Biomedical Research Centres were explored through in‐depth interviews with 19 researchers.

Results

Participants distinguished PPI (as an activity involving patients and carers in research projects and programmes) from PES (as an activity that aims to communicate research findings to the public, engage the public with broader issues of science policy or promote a greater understanding of the role of science in society). While participants demonstrated a range of attitudes to these practices, they shared a resistance to sharing power and control of the research process with the public and patients.

Conclusion

While researchers were prepared to engage with the public and patients and listed the advantages of engagement, the study revealed few differences in their underlying attitudes towards the role of society in science (and science in society) to those reported in previous studies. To the participants science remains the preserve of scientists, with patients and the public invited to ‘tinker at the edges’.

Science cafés: engaging scientists and community through health and science dialogue

Engagement of the community through informal dialogue with researchers and physicians around health and science topics is an important avenue to build understanding and affect health and science literacy. Science Cafés are one model for this casual interchange; however the impact of this approach remains under researched. The Community Engagement Key Function of the Clinical and Translational Science Institute of Southeast Wisconsin hosted a series of Science Cafés in which topics were collaboratively decided upon by input from the community. Topics ranged from Personalized Medicine to Alzheimer's and Dementia to BioMedical Innovation. A systematic evaluation of the impact of Science Cafés on attendees' self-confidence related to five health and scientific literacy concepts showed statistically significant increases across all items (Mean differences between mean retrospective pre-scores and post-scores, one tailed, paired samples t-test, n=141, p<.0001 for all items). The internal consistency of the five health and scientific literacy items was excellent (n=126, α=0.87). Thematic analysis of attendees' comments provides more nuance about positive experience and suggestions for possible improvements. The evaluation provides important evidence supporting the effectiveness of brief, casual dialogue as a way to increase the public's self-rated confidence in health and science topics.

Frankenstein 2.0.: Identifying and characterising synthetic biology engineers in science fiction films

Synthetic biology (SB) has emerged as one of the newest and promising areas of bio-technology. Issues typically associated to SB, notably in the media, like the idea of artificial life creation and “real” engineering of life also appear in many popular films. Drawing upon the analysis of 48 films, the article discusses how scientists applying technologies that can be related to SB are represented in these movies. It hereby discusses that traditional clichés of scientists in general tend to be sublated by new stereotypical characterizations. These reflect real trends in bio-technological research such as SB, especially the increased relationship between science and industry. Frankenstein 2.0. looks less like the old, genius yet mad scientist, and follows a more entrepreneurial than academic spirit.

Involving stakeholders in the commissioning and implementation of fishery science projects: experiences from the U.K. Fisheries Science Partnership

Following from similar initiatives worldwide, the U.K.'s Fisheries Science Partnership (FSP) was established in 2003 to provide the fishing industry with opportunities to propose and participate in scientific studies in collaboration with fishery scientists. Key concepts were that most of the available funding would support industry participation, that industry, not scientists, would come up with the ideas for projects, and that commercial fishing vessels and fishing methods would be used to address specific concerns of the fishing industry in a scientifically controlled manner. Nearly 100 projects had been commissioned by March 2012, covering annual time-series surveys of stocks subject to traditional assessment, and ad hoc projects on, e.g. gear selectivity, discard survival, tagging and migration and fishery development. The extent to which the results of the projects have been used by stakeholders, fishery scientists and fishery managers at a national and E.U. level is evaluated, along with the degree of industry interest and involvement, and reasons are identified for successes or failures in the uptake of the results into management and policy. Finally, the question is posed whether the programme has been successful in improving the engagement of the fishing community in the science-management process and in fostering communication and greater trust between fishers, scientists and managers.

Of risks and regulations: how leading U.S. nanoscientists form policy stances about nanotechnology

Even though there is a high degree of scientific uncertainty about the risks of nanotechnology, many scholars have argued that policy-making cannot be placed on hold until risk assessments are complete (Faunce, Med J Aust 186(4):189-191, 2007; Kuzma, J Nanopart Res 9(1):165-182, 2007; O'Brien and Cummins, Hum Ecol Risk Assess 14(3):568-592, 2008; Powell et al., Environ Manag 42(3):426-443, 2008). In the absence of risk assessment data, decision makers often rely on scientists' input about risks and regulation to make policy decisions. The research we present here goes beyond the earlier descriptive studies about nanotechnology regulation to explore the heuristics that the leading U.S. nanoscientists use when they make policy decisions about regulating nanotechnology. In particular, we explore the relationship between nanoscientists' risk and benefit perceptions and their support for nanotech regulation. We conclude that nanoscientists are more supportive of regulating nanotechnology when they perceive higher levels of risks; yet, their perceived benefits about nanotechnology do not significantly impact their support for nanotech regulation. We also find some gender and disciplinary differences among the nanoscientists. Males are less supportive of nanotech regulation than their female peers and materials scientists are more supportive of nanotechnology regulation than scientists in other fields. Lastly, our findings illustrate that the leading U.S. nanoscientists see the areas of surveillance/privacy, human enhancement, medicine, and environment as the nanotech application areas that are most in need of new regulations.

Using biographies to illustrate the intrapersonal and interpersonal dynamics of science

We describe using biographies in teaching a course about the intrapersonal and interpersonal dynamics of science, with an emphasis on the professional and personal experiences of women in science. In our course, Life of a Psychologist: Experiences of Women in Science, students examine biographies and scientific research written by female psychologists across the main research areas of psychology. Biographies by these female psychologists and research on the experiences of women scientists are used to highlight the intrapersonal and interpersonal dynamics of science. Intrapersonal dynamics refer to the changes that occur within a person, such as developing an identity as a scientist, having a voice, and achieving success. Interpersonal dynamics refer to exchanges between people, such as collaborating on research, mentorship, and balancing personal and professional lives. Qualitative data support using biographies in teaching about the dynamics of science. Suggestions for using biographies in other courses are provided.