22 pages., via online journal., Scientists are frequently asked to broadly share their expertise and research with a variety of audiences, beyond typical academic circles in their home disciplines. That could include developing community engagement programs, school outreach, leveraging online social networks, and other activities. The purpose of this study was to examine U.S. agricultural and natural resources (ANR) scientists’ typical science communication channels, their experiences utilizing Twitter for sharing their knowledge, research, and engaging in online public science discussion. Diffusion of Innovations theory and the model of science in-reach versus outreach guided this study. Researchers used a qualitative case study design. Data collection included ANR scientist interviews (n = 8) and application of Internet-based research methods for observing scientists’ Twitter activities. Four themes emerged from the data: 1) academic journals and conferences as scientists’ typical communication channels, yet Extension efforts help to broaden audiences, 2) scientists expected research to be peer-reviewed before public dissemination to combat misinformation and spreading of ‘junk science’, 3) scientists balanced professionalism, personalization, promotion, and Twitter hashtags for engagement, and 4) scientist-identified barriers to using Twitter included lack of time and avoiding heated discussions. Recommendations include revisiting scientists’ job descriptions and expectations for online science engagement. Also, there should be continual development and implementation of science communication training for scientists targeting best Twitter practices, growing followers for outreach beyond academic colleagues and groups, using visuals for online engagement, intentional scheduling for social media, and how to effectively navigate heated online discussions.
15 pages., via online journal., This paper presents selected highlights from the ‘Engaging with society’ session of EFSA's third Scientific Conference ‘Science, Food and Society’ (Parma, Italy, 18–21 September 2018). The social dimension for scientific advisory bodies largely concerns science communication and public engagement. The political, economic and technological transformation of contemporary societies is challenging conventional structures and approaches in these areas. The disintermediation of communication and the proliferation of misinformation, it is argued, herald the onset of the post‐truth society. A better understanding of the way individuals consume information today has led to the development of tools to guide mediators such as journalists and communication specialists in countering these trends. Public engagement can reinforce confidence in regulatory bodies and potentially contribute to the quality of the scientific process. Scientific advisory bodies in Europe have created strategies and mechanisms to engage the public that are designed to increase transparency and representativeness. To be effective, several engagement mechanisms are needed, although factors such as resource constraints, institutional culture and public/stakeholder attitudes may limit their development. In conclusion, a more vigorous role for social research is needed to place scientific risk assessment within broader socio‐economic and political contexts. Social science expertise can help to define more impactful public information strategies and to explore the potential opportunities that engaged stakeholders and citizens can make to sustain and strengthen regulatory science.
