This article provides an overview of science communication, which is a vital area of mass communication scholarship. The review is organized around the key players, including news organizations, reporters, science information professionals, scientists, and audiences. Also reviewed is the problem of science communication, which may be partly responsible for widespread science illiteracy. Ways of improving the practice of science communication and an agenda for future research are offered.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Albert, E.
1986. Acquired immune deficiency syndrome: The victim and the press. In Studies in communications, Vol. 3, edited by T. McCormack, 135-158. Greenwich, CT: JAI.
2.
Altheide, D. L.
1976. Creating reality: How TV news distorts events. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
3.
Althoff, P.
, W. H. Grieg, and F. Stuckey. 1973. Environmental pollution control attitudes of media managers in Kansas. Journalism Quarterly50:666-672.
4.
Altimore, M.1982. The social construction of a scientific controversy: Comments on press coverage of the recombinant DNA debate. Science, Technology, & Human Values7:24-31.
5.
Angell, M.
1996. Science on trial: The clash of medical evidence. New York: Norton.
6.
Atwood, L. E.
1998. Risk perception and information management responses to a predicted earthquake. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication, Baltimore, August.
7.
Bader, R. G.1990. How science news sections influence newspaper science coverage: A case study. Journalism Quarterly67:88-96.
8.
Baker, A. J.
1986. The portrayal of AIDS in the media: An analysis of articles in the New York Times. In The social dimension of AIDS: Method and theory, edited by D. A. Feldman and T. M. Johnson, 179-194. New York: Praeger.
9.
Banks, J.
, and J. D. Tankel. 1990. Science as fiction: Technology in prime time television. Critical Studies in Mass Communication7:24-36.
10.
Boorstin, D. J.
1983. The discoverers: A history of man's search to know his world and himself. New York: Random House.
11.
Borman, S. C.1978. Communication accuracy in magazine science reporting. Journalism Quarterly55:345-346.
12.
Bostian, L. R.1983. How active, passive and nominal styles affect readability of science writing. Journalism Quarterly60:635-640, 670.
13.
Bostian, L. R.
, and T. E. Byrne. 1984. Comprehension of styles of science writing. Journalism Quarterly61:676-678.
14.
Bowes, J. E.
, and K. R. Stamm. 1972. Communicating during an environmental decision. Journal of Environmental Education3:49-55.
15.
Bowman, J. S.
, and K. Hanaford. 1977. Mass media and the environment since Earth Day. Journalism Quarterly54:160-165.
16.
Bradbury, J.1989. The policy implications of differing concepts of risk. Science, Technology, & Human Values14:380-399.
17.
Breed, W.
1980. The newspaperman, news, and society. New York: Arno.
18.
Broberg, K.1973. Scientists' stopping behavior as indicator of writer's skill. Journalism Quarterly50:763-767.
19.
Brown, M. L.
, and A. L. Potosky. 1990. The presidential effect: The public health response to media coverage about Ronald Reagan's colon cancer episode. Public Opinion Quarterly50:317-329.
20.
Burkett, W.
1986. News reporting: Science, medicine, and high technology. Ames: Iowa State University Press.
21.
Burnham, J.
1987. How superstition won and science lost: Popularizing science and health in the United States. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
22.
Caudill, E.1987. A content analysis of press views of Darwin's evolution theory. Journalism Quarterly64:782-786.
23.
Caudill, E.1989. The roots of bias: An empiricist press and coverage of the Scopes trial. Journalism Monographs114.
24.
Caudill, E.
, and P. Ashtown. 1989. The New England Journal of Medicine as news source. Journalism Quarterly66:458-462.
25.
Cole, B. J.1975. Trends in science and conflict coverage in four metropolitan newspapers. Journalism Quarterly52:465-471.
26.
Collins, H. M.1987. Certainty and the public understanding of science. Social Studies of Science17:689-713.
27.
Commission on Professionals in Science and Technology
. 2001. Scientists and engineers for the new millennium: Renewing the human resource. Retrieved 30 July 2001: http://www.cpst.org/S&E.PDF.
28.
Crane, V.
1992. Listening to the audience: Producer-audience communication. In When science meets the public, edited by B. V. Lewenstein, 21-32. Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science.
29.
Crisp, D. W.
1986. Scientists and the local press. In Scientists and journalists: Reporting science as news, edited by S. M. Friedman, S. Dunwoody, and C. L. Rogers, 73-80. New York: Free Press.
30.
Cronholm, M.
, and R. Sandell. 1981. Scientific information: A review of research. Journal of Communication31:85-96.
31.
David, P.1996. Role of imagery in recall of deviant news. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly73:804-819.
32.
Davis, K. G.
1999a. Don't know much about geography. New York: Avon.
33.
Davis, K. G.
1999b. Don't know much about history. New York: Avon.
34.
Dearing, J. W.1995. Newspaper coverage of maverick science: Creating controversy through balancing. Public Understanding of Science4:341-361.
35.
Dennis, E.
, and J. McCartney. 1979. Science journalists on metropolitan dailies. Journal of Environmental Education10:10-11.
36.
DiBella, S. M.
, A. J. Ferri, and A. B. Padderud. 1991. Scientists' reasons for consenting to mass media interviews: A national survey. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly68:740-749.
37.
Dornan, C.1988. The “problem” of science and media: A few seminal texts in their context, 1956-1965. Journal of Communication Inquiry12:53-70.
38.
Dornan, C.1990. Some problems in conceptualizing the issue of “science and the media.”Critical Studies in Mass Communication7:48-71.
39.
Dubas, O.
, and L. Martel. 1975. Media impact: A research study on science communication. Ottawa, Canada: Ministry of State.
40.
Dunwoody, S.1979. News-gathering behaviors of specialty reporters: A two-level comparison of mass media decision-making. Newspaper Research Journal1:29-41.
41.
Dunwoody, S.1980. The science writing inner club: A communication link between science and the lay public. Science, Technology, & Human Values5:14-22.
42.
Dunwoody, S.1982. A question of accuracy. IEEE Transactions on Professional CommunicationPC-25:196-199.
43.
Dunwoody, S.
1986a. The scientist as source. In Scientists and journalists: Reporting science as news, edited by S. M. Friedman, S. Dunwoody, and C. L. Rogers, 3-16. New York: Free Press.
44.
Dunwoody, S.
1986b. When science writers cover the social sciences. In Reporting science: The case of aggression, edited by J. H. Goldstein, 67-81. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
45.
Dunwoody, S.
1992. Comparative strategies for making the complex clear. In When science meets the public, edited by B. V. Lewenstein, 101-102. Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science.
46.
Dunwoody, S.
, and K. Neuwirth. 1991. Coming to terms with the impact of communication of scientific and technological risk judgments. In Risky business: Communicating issues of science, risk, and public policy, edited by L. Wilkins and P. Patterson, 11-30. Westport, CT: Greenwood.
47.
Dunwoody, S.
, and M. Ryan. 1983. Public information persons as mediators between scientists and journalists. Journalism Quarterly60:647-656.
48.
Dunwoody, S.
, and M. Ryan. 1985. Scientific barriers to the popularization of science in the mass media. Journal of Communication35 (1): 26-42.
49.
Dunwoody, S.
, and M. Ryan. 1987. The credible scientific source. Journalism Quarterly64:21-27.
50.
Durant, J.
, and G. A. Evans. 1989. Understanding of science in Britain and the U.S.A. In British social attitudes: Special international report, edited by R. Jowell, S. Witherspoon, and L. Brook. Aldershot, UK: Gower.
51.
Durant, J.
, G. A. Evans, and G. P. Thomas. 1992. Public understanding of science in Britain: The role of medicine in the popular representation of science. Public Understanding of Science1:161-182.
52.
Einsiedel, E. F.1992. Framing science and technology in the Canadian Press. Public Understanding of Science1:89-101.
53.
Entwistle, V.
, and M. Hancock-Beaulieu. 1992. Health and medical coverage in the UK National Press. Public Understanding of Science1:164-188.
54.
Eron, L. D.
1986. The social responsibility of the scientist. In Reporting science: The case of aggression, edited by J. H. Goldstein. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
55.
Evans, W. A.
, M. Krippendorf, J. H. Yoon, P. Posluszny, and S. Thomas. 1990. Science in the prestige and national tabloid presses. Social Science Quarterly71:105-117.
56.
Ferris, T.
1997. The whole shebang: A state-of-the-universes report. New York: Touchstone.
57.
Freimuth, V. S.
, and J. P. Van Nevel. 1981. Reaching the public: The asbestos awareness campaign. Journal of Communication31:155-167.
58.
Friedman, S. M.
1986. The journalist's world. In Scientists and journalists: Reporting science as news, edited by S. M. Friedman, S. Dunwoody, and C. L. Rogers, 17-41. New York: Free Press.
59.
Friedman, S. M.
, S. Dunwoody, and C. L. Rogers. 1986. Introduction. In Scientists and journalists: Reporting science as news, edited by S. M. Friedman, S. Dunwoody, and C. L. Rogers, xi-xvii. New York: Free Press.
60.
Gans, H.
1979. Deciding what's news. New York: Random House.
61.
Gerbner, G.1987. Science on television: How it affects public conceptions. Issues in Science and Technology3:109-115.
62.
Gleick, J.
1987. Chaos: Making a new science. New York: Viking.
63.
Glynn, C. J.1988. Science reporters and their editors judge “sensationalism.”Newspaper Research Journal6:69-74.
64.
Golding, D.
1992. A social and programmatic history of risk research. In Social theories of risk, edited by S. Krimsky and D. Golding, 23-52. Westport, CT: Praeger.
65.
Goodell, R.
1977. The visible scientists. Boston: Little, Brown.
66.
Gookin, D.
1999. PCs for dummies. New York: Hungry Minds.
67.
Gorney, C. M.1992. Numbers versus pictures: Did network television sensationalize Chernobyl coverage?Journalism Quarterly69:455-465.
68.
Gould, S. J.
1995. Dinosaur in a haystack: Reflections in natural history. New York: Crown.
69.
Greenberg, M. R.
, D. B. Sachsman, P. M. Sandman, and K. L. Salomone. 1989. Risk, drama and geography in coverage of environmental risk by network TV. Journalism Quarterly66: 267-276.
70.
Greenberg, M. R.
, and D. Wartenberg. 1990. Network television evening news coverage of infectious disease events. Journalism Quarterly67:142-146.
71.
Gregory, J.
, and S. Miller. 1998. Science in public: Communication, culture, and credibility. New York: Plenum.
72.
Griffin, R. J.
, and S. Dunwoody. 1995. Impacts of information subsidies and community structure on local press coverage of environmental contamination. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly72:271-284.
73.
Griffin, R. J.
, K. Neuwirth, and S. Dunwoody. 1995. Using the theory of reasoned action to examine the impact of health risk messages. In Communication Yearbook. 18, edited by B. R. Burleson, 201-228. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
74.
Grube, A.
, and K. Boehme-Duerr. 1988. AIDS in international news magazines. Journalism Quarterly65:686-689.
75.
Grunig, J. E.1974. Three stopping experiments on the communication of science. Journalism Quarterly51:387-399.
76.
Grunig, J. E.1979. Research on science communication: What is known and what needs to be known. ACE Quarterly62:17-45.
77.
Grunig, J. E.1983. Communication behaviors and attitudes of environmental publics: Two studies. Journalism Monographs81.
78.
Hartz, J.
, and R. Chappell. 1997. Worlds apart: How the distance between science and journalism threatens America's future. Nashville, TN: First Amendment Center.
79.
Hawking, S. W.
1988. A brief history of time: From the big bang to black holes. New York: Bantam.
80.
Hilgartner, S.
, and C. L. Bosk. 1988. The rise and fall of social problems: A public arenas model. American Journal of Sociology94:53-78.
81.
Hunsaker, A.1979. Enjoyment and information gain in science articles. Journalism Quarterly56:617-619.
82.
Jerome, F.
1986. Prospects for science journalism. In Reporting science: The case of aggression, edited by J. H. Goldstein, 147-154. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
83.
Johnson, K. G.1963. Dimensions of judgment of science news stories. Journalism Quarterly40:315-322.
84.
Juanillo, N. K.
, and C. W. Scherer. 1995. Attaining a state of informed judgments: Toward a dialectical discourse on risk. In Communication Yearbook. 18, edited by B. R. Burleson, 278-299. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
85.
Kahlor, L.
, S. Dunwoody, and R. J. Griffin. 1998. The role of attribution and framing in rationalizing about risk estimates. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication, Baltimore, August.
86.
Kiernan, V.
1998. Mars meteorite: A case study in controls on dissemination of science news. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication, Baltimore, August.
87.
Klaidman, S.
1991. Health in the headlines: The stories behind the stories. New York: Oxford University Press.
88.
LaFollette, M. C.
1990. Making science our own: Public images of science 1910-1955. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
89.
Lewenstein, B. V.
1992. Introduction. In When science meets the public, edited by B. V. Lewenstein, ix-xvi. Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science.
90.
Lewenstein, B. V.
, T. Allaman, and S. Parthasarathy. 1998. Historical survey of media coverage of biotechnology in the United States 1970 to 1996. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication, Baltimore, August.
91.
Liebler, C. M.
, and J. Bendix. 1997. How distant the forest? Proximity, environmental controversy and source status conferral. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication, Chicago, August.
Maienschein, J.
, and students. 1999. Commentary: To the future—Arguments for scientific literacy. Science Communication21:75-87.
94.
Mazur, A.
1981a. The dynamics of technical controversy. Washington, DC: Communications Press.
95.
Mazur, A.1981b. Media coverage and public opinion on scientific controversies. Journal of Communication31:106-115.
96.
Mazur, A.
, and B. Conant. 1978. Controversy over a local nuclear waste repository. Social Studies of Science8:235-243.
97.
McCombs, M. E.
, and D. S. Shaw. 1972. The agenda-setting function of mass media. Public Opinion Quarterly36:176-187.
98.
McCombs, M. E.
, and D. S. Shaw. 1993. The evolution of agenda-setting research: Twenty-five years in the marketplace of ideas. Journal of Communication43:58-67.
99.
McLeod, J. M.
, C. J. Glynn, and R. J. Griffin. 1987. Communication and energy conservation. Journal of Environmental Education18:29-37.
100.
Miller, J. D.1983. Scientific literacy: A conceptual and empirical review. Daedalus112:29-48.
101.
Miller, J. D.
1986. Reaching the attentive and interested publics for science. In Scientists and journalists: Reporting science as news, edited by S. M. Friedman, S. Dunwoody, and C. L. Rogers, 55-69. New York: Free Press.
102.
Moore, B.
, and M. Singletary. 1985. Scientific sources' perceptions of network news accuracy. Journalism Quarterly62:816-823.
103.
Mueller, W. W.1990. Who's afraid of food?American Demographics12:40-43.
104.
National Association of Science Writers
. 2001. NASW brochure. Retrieved 30 July 2001: http://www.nasw.org/brochure.htm.
105.
National Geographic Society
. 1976. Our continent: A natural history of North America. Washington, DC: National Geographic Society.
106.
National Science Board
. 2000. Science and engineering indicators 2000. Available: http://www.nsf.gov/sbe/srs/seind00/.
107.
Nelkin, D.
1995. Selling science: How the press covers science and technology. Rev. ed.New York: Freeman.
108.
Nimmo, D.
, and J. E. Combs. 1985. Nightly horrors. Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press.
109.
Norstedt, S. A.1991. The information crisis in Sweden after Chernobyl. Media, Culture, and Society13:477-497.
110.
Palen, J. A.1994. A map for science reporters: Science, technology, and society studies concepts in basic reporting and newswriting textbooks. Michigan Academician26:507-519.
111.
Paulos, J. A.
1988. Innumeracy: Mathematical illiteracy and its consequences. New York: Vintage.
112.
Paulos, J.P.
1995. A mathematician reads the newspaper. New York: Basic Books.
113.
Peters, H. P.1992. The credibility of information sources in West Germany after the Chernobyl disaster. Public Understanding of Science1:325-343.
114.
Peters, H. P.
, G. Albrecht, L. Hennen, and H. U. Stegelmann. 1990. “Chernobyl” and the nuclear power issue in West German public opinion. Journal of Environmental Psychology10:121-134.
115.
Pilisuk, M.
, and C. Acredolo. 1988. Fear of technological hazards: One or many?Social Behavior3:17-24.
116.
Pinker, S.
1994. The language instinct: How the mind creates language. New York: William Morrow.
117.
Prewitt, K.1982. The public and science policy. Science, Technology, & Human Values36:5-14.
118.
Pulford, D. L.1976. A follow-up study of science news accuracy. Journalism Quarterly53:119-121.
119.
Ramsey, S. A.1989. The role of technological development in setting the stage for expanded local science coverage. Southwestern Mass Communication Journal5:33-40.
120.
Renn, O.
1992. Concepts of risk: A classification. In Social theories of risk, edited by S. Krimsky and D. Golding, 53-82. Westport, CT: Praeger.
121.
Rogers, C. L.
1986. The practitioner in the middle. In Scientists and journalists: Reporting science as news, edited by S. M. Friedman, S. Dunwoody, and C. L. Rogers, 42-54. New York: Free Press.
122.
Rossow, M. D.
, and S. Dunwoody. 1991. Inclusion of “useful” detail in newspaper coverage of a high-level nuclear waste siting controversy. Journalism Quarterly68:87-100.
123.
Rothman, S.
, and S. R. Lichter. 1987. Elite ideology and risk perception in nuclear energy policy. American Political Science Review81:383-404.
124.
Rowan, K. E.1989. Moving beyond the what to why: Differences in professional and popular science writing. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication19:161-179.
125.
Rowan, K. E.1991a. Goals, obstacles and strategies in risk communication: A problem-solving approach to improving communication about risk. Journal of Applied Communication Research19:300-329.
126.
Rowan, K. E.1991b. When simple language fails: Presenting difficult science to the public. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication21:369-382.
127.
Rowan, K. E.
1992. Strategies for enhancing comprehension of science. In When science meets the public, edited by B. V. Lewenstein, 131-143. Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science.
128.
Rubin, D. M.
, and V. Hendy. 1977. Swine influenza and the news media. Annals of Internal Medicine87:772-773.
129.
Russell, C.
1986. The view from the national beat. In Scientists and journalists: Reporting science as news, edited by S. M. Friedman, S. Dunwoody, and C. L. Rogers, 81-94. New York: Free Press.
130.
Ryan, M.1979. Attitudes of scientists and journalists towards media coverage of science news. Journalism Quarterly56:18-26.
131.
Ryan, M.
, and D. Owen. 1977. An accuracy survey of metropolitan newspaper coverage of social issues. Journalism Quarterly54:27-32.
132.
Sagan, C.
1980. Cosmos. New York: Random House.
133.
Schibeci, R. A.1990. Public knowledge and perceptions of science and technology. Bulletin of Science, Technology, and Society10:86-92.
134.
Schoenfeld, A. C.1979. The press and NEPA: The case of the missing agenda. Journalism Quarterly56:577-585.
135.
Shoemaker, P. J.
, and S. D. Reese. 1991. Mediating the message: Theories of influences on mass media content. White Plains, NY: Longman.
136.
Shortland, M.
, and J. Gregory. 1991. Communicating science: A handbook. New York: Longman.
137.
Siegfried, T.
1992. Newspapers. In When science meets the public, edited by B. V. Lewenstein, 113-124. Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science.
138.
Singer, E.1990. A question of accuracy: How journalists and scientists report research on hazards. Journal of Communication40:102-116.
139.
Singer, E.
, P. Endreny, and M. B. Glassman. 1991. Media coverage of disasters: Effects of geographic location. Journalism Quarterly68:48-58.
140.
Singer, E.
, T. F. Rogers, and M. B. Glassman. 1991. Public opinion about AIDS before and after the 1988 U.S. government public information campaign. Public Opinion Quarterly55:161-179.
141.
Slovic, P.
1992. Perception of risk: Reflections on the psychometric paradigm. In Social theories of risk, edited by S. Krimsky and D. Golding, 117-152. Westport, CT: Praeger.
142.
Stephens, M.
, and N. G. Edison. 1982. News media coverage of issues during the accident at Three-Mile Island. Journalism Quarterly59:199-204.
143.
Stroman, C. A.
, and R. Seltzer. 1989. Mass media use and knowledge of AIDS. Journalism Quarterly66:881-887.
144.
Tankard, J. W.
, and M. Ryan. 1974. News source perceptions of accuracy of science coverage. Journalism Quarterly51:219-225, 334.
145.
Tavris, C.
1986. How to publicize science: A case study. In Reporting science: The case of aggression, edited by J. H. Goldstein, 21-32. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
146.
Trachtman, L.1981. The public understanding of science effort: A critique. Science, Technology, & Human Values36:10-15.
147.
Trench, B.
1998. Science reporting in Europe: From comparison to critique. Paper presented at the Public Communication of Science and Technology Conference, Berlin, Germany, September.
148.
Trumbo, C. W.
, S. Dunwoody, and R. J. Griffin. 1998. Journalists, cognition, and the presentation of an epidemiologic study. Science Communication19:238-265.
149.
Valenti, J.1999. Commentary: How well do scientists communicate to media?Science Communication21:172-178.
150.
Viscusi, K.
1992. Smoking: Making the risky decision. New York: Oxford.
151.
Ward, J.
1992. Television. In When science meets the public, edited by B. V. Lewenstein, 103-106. Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science.
152.
Weaver, D. H.
, and G. C. Wilhoit. 1996. The American journalist in the 1990s: U.S. news people at the end of an era. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
153.
West, L. J.
1986. How not to publicize research: The UCLA Violence Center. In Reporting science: The case of aggression, edited by J. H. Goldstein, 67-81. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
154.
Witte, K.
1995. Generating effective risk messages: How scary should your risk communication be? In Communication Yearbook. 18, edited by B. R. Burleson, 229-254. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
155.
Wright, R.
1994. The moral animal: Why we are the way we are. New York: Vintage.
156.
Yankelovich, D.1982. Changing public attitudes to science and the quality of life: Edited excerpts from a seminar. Science, Technology, & Human Values7:23-29.
157.
Ziman, J.
1992. Not knowing, needing to know, and wanting to know. In When science meets the public, edited by B. V. Lewenstein, 13-20. Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science.
