Advertisement

Science and Social Communication

  • Natividad Carpintero-SantamaríaEmail author
Conference paper

Abstract

Social communication has an important sociological and psychological impact; the way scientific developments are transmitted to society can significantly affect the way they are perceived. Scientific findings need to be adequately presented and their interest and value must be stressed if they are to be understood and appreciated by society. In many cases, scientific issues are not satisfactorily transmitted or assessed and are misunderstood or ignored by nonspecialist audiences. Traditional mass media instruments such as newspapers, radio, and TV are being overtaken by the powerful influence of the internet, with its ability to reach remote places and social groups. The transmission of science through social mass media can help people to accept its benefits but may also lead to misapprehensions. The internet is perceived by a large sector of society as a reliable source of information, but this powerful new communication channel requires a greater awareness on the part of its users to avoid the misunderstanding—and, in the worst possible scenario, the misuse—of the information it contains. This paper focuses on a range of areas such as the social perception of science, the role of the internet, limits, and ethics in scientific communication, and the endeavor of the European Union in science transmission.

Keywords

Social perception of science The role of internet Limits and ethics of scientific communication 

References

  1. Beal, V. (2016). Internet. Webopedia. Retrieved on 21 April 2017 at http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/I/Internet.html.
  2. Burns, T. W., O’Connor, D. J., & Stocklmayer, S. M. (2003). Science communication:A contemporary definition. Public Understand Science 12, 183–202. doi:  https://doi.org/10.1177/09636625030122004. Retrieved on April 15, 2017 from http://pus.sagepub.com.
  3. Clarke, M. (2008). Ethics of science communication on the web. Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics. Published online December 2008. doi: https://doi.org/10.3354/esep00096. Retrieved on February 20, 2017 at http://www.int-res.com/articles/esep2009/9/journalism/e009pp2.pdf.
  4. Declaration of Human Rights (1948). Retrieved on May 29, 2017 from http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/.
  5. Dumon, O. (2013). How the internet changed science research and academic publishing, creating the new research economy. Retrieved on March 23, 2017 from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/olivier-dumon/how-the-internet-changed_b_2405006.html.
  6. EU Framework Programme for Research and Innovation Horizon. (2020). Retrieved on December 3, 2016 from https://ec.europa.eu/programmes/horizon2020/.
  7. Fang, F. C, Steen R. G., & Casadevall A. (2012). Misconduct account for the majority of retracted scientific publications. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109(42):17028–17033. U S A [Internet] 2012 [cited 2015 June 16]. Retrieved on April 16, 2017 from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3479492/.
  8. Fujun, R., Lin, Y., & Honglin, L. (2012). Science popularization studies in China. In B. Schiele, M. Clasessens, & S. Shunke (Eds.). Science communication in the world: Practices, theories and trends. Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
  9. Garvey, W. D. (1979). Communication:The essence of science, Facilitating information exchange among librarians, scientists, engineers and students. Oxford: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
  10. Harley, D. (2013). Scientific communication: Cultural contexts, evolving models. Retrieved on December 22, 2016, from http://www.cshe.berkeley.edu/sites/default/files/shared/publications/docs/Harley_Science_10-2013_scientific-communication.pdf.
  11. International Council for Science. (2017). Freedoms and Responsibilities or Scientists. Retrieved on May 25, 2017 from https://www.icsu.org/what-we-do/freedoms-and-responsibilities-of-scientists.
  12. Internet Users in the World by Regions—March 25, 2017. Internet World Stats. Usage and Population Statistics. Retrieved on April 24, 2017 from http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats.htm.
  13. Malakoff, D. (2013). Hey, you’ve got to hide your work away. Science, 342(6154), 70–71. doi:  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.342.6154.70. http://science.sciencemag.org/content/342/6154/70.full.
  14. Realising the European Open Science Cloud. (2016). First report and recommendations of the commission high level expert group on the European open science cloud. Retrieved on April 22, 2017 from https://ec.europa.eu/research/openscience/pdf/realising_the_european_open_science_cloud_2016.pdf#view=fit&pagemode=none.
  15. Report of the NSB Committee on Openness of Scientific Communication (1988). National Scientifc Foundation. Retrieved on 17 November 2016, from https://www.nsf.gov/nsb/publications/1988/nsb1288.pdf.
  16. VII Encuesta de Percepción Social de la Ciencia. Dossier informativo. FECYT. (2014). Retrieved on October 13, 2016 at http://www.idi.mineco.gob.es/stfls/MICINN/Prensa/NOTAS_PRENSA/2015/Dossier_PSC_2015.pdf.
  17. World Health Organization. (2013). Health risk assessment from the nuclear accident after the 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake and Tsunami based on a preliminary dose estimation. Retrieved on September 21, 2016 from http://www.who.int/ionizing_radiation/pub_meet/fukushima_risk_assessment_2013/en/).
  18. World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). (2017). Retrieved on November 19, 2017 from http://www.wipo.int/about-ip/en/.

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Departamento de Ingeniería Energética, Instituto de Fusión NuclearUniversidad Politécnica de MadridMadridSpain

Personalised recommendations