The governance principles and value dissemination of science and technology ethics in science and technology communication *

Abstract

Value dissemination in science and technology (S&T) communication is not only a crucial component of the overall S&T ethics governance system but also a significant means to effectively convey the connotation of S&T ethical values. This study examines the significance and inherent characteristics of the dissemination of S&T ethical values in S&T communication, analyses the key values that need to be disseminated while considering its unique process, and discusses the prominent issues and challenges faced by contemporary S&T communication in achieving value dissemination. Finally, it proposes governance principles for S&T communication to realize the dissemination of S&T ethical values.

1. The transmission of ethical values in science communication is a fundamental aspect of the governance of science and technology ethics

To properly address the transmission of ethical values in science communication, it is essential to understand the dual role of science communication as both an object and an instrument within the framework of science and technology (S&T) ethics governance. Regarding its role as an object of governance, science communication stands as a pivotal component in the entire chain of technological advancement; without governance targeting the process of science communication, it would be challenging to establish a comprehensive ethical system for S&T. In terms of its role as a means, science communication is a vital pathway for disseminating S&T achievements. The quality and efficiency of science communication dictate whether the ethical values inherent in S&T can be effectively disseminated across society, thereby realizing optimal outcomes in the governance of S&T ethics.

1.1 Science communication is a vital link in the governance of science and technology ethics

Science communication is an essential component of S&T innovation. In 1996 and 1997, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development published two well-known reports, The Knowledge-Based Economy and National Innovation Systems, which provided preliminary insights on the diffusion of knowledge and technology and stressed the importance of dissemination power within a complete technological innovation system. Since then, a series of reports issued by technological powerhouses such as the UK and the US, as well as multinational organizations, and the subsequent S&T development strategies and policies formulated by various countries and regions, have all treated the dissemination of S&T as a crucial part of the advance of S&T innovation. Correspondingly, in the governance of S&T, science communication is also recognized as a critical component within the whole governance process. China, on its part, has put forward a similar concept. At the National Science and Technology Innovation Conference in 2016, as well as the joint meeting of the members of the Chinese Academy of Sciences and the Chinese Academy of Engineering and the Ninth National Congress of the China Association for Science and Technology (CAST), General Secretary Xi Jinping emphasized that S&T innovation and science popularization are the two wings of innovative development, and science popularization should be placed in an equally important position as S&T innovation. Subsequently, in multiple important speeches, Xi Jinping has reaffirmed the importance of popularizing science.

Grasping the pivotal role of science communication in the overall course of S&T innovation would enable us to understand that a robust governance system for S&T ethics should include the process of science communication. The Opinions on Strengthening the Governance of Science and Technology Ethics issued in 2022 explicitly address the communication segment with the following requirement: We should strengthen ethical governance throughout the entire process, from team members to the implementation of project (topic) research. The publication, dissemination and application of research findings involving sensitive S&T ethical issues should comply with relevant regulations and be conducted with rigour and caution. This governance philosophy indicates that scientific papers and technological products are not the end point of S&T ethics governance. The dissemination of scientific knowledge, the social application of S&T advances and even the public opinions surrounding technological development all encompass various ethically sensitive issues. For example, the remarks made by He Jiankui at an international symposium following his release from prison caused criticism from scientific communities of China and other countries. However, the journal Nature emphasized the response of the international community while neglecting the criticism from Chinese scientists. That one-sided coverage presented an inaccurate image of Chinese scientists as having deficient ethical awareness. It is imperative that such misrepresentations, which stray from factual accuracy, be met with vigilance and addressed within the framework of S&T ethics governance.

As demonstrated by the ultimate goal of S&T ethics governance, S&T should remain a force for good, evolve responsibly and serve the betterment of humanity. Thus, in the landscape of modern technological advancement, there is a dual imperative to embrace the scientific ethos of veracity and practicality while concurrently internalizing the principles of goodwill and responsibility as the core objectives of S&T endeavours. The governance of S&T ethics, particularly in the generation of scientific knowledge and the development of technologies, focuses on the instrumental rationality of S&T. It is only through the ongoing absorption and internalization of these achievements within the socialization process that the concept of ‘S&T serving the greater good’ can become deeply ingrained in the public's consciousness, thereby clearing a path towards achieving the ultimate goal of ‘S&T for good’. Conversely, poor science communication can lead to misunderstandings and misuse of S&T. Untimely and inaccurate value transmission will inevitably hinder the dissemination of the concept of S&T for good, thereby affecting the public's understanding and support for S&T. In September 2020, the China Association of Natural Science and Technology Museums, the China Science Writers Association, the China Society for Science and Technology Journalism, the National Academy of Innovation Strategy of CAST, and Beijing Guokr Interactive Technology Media Co. Ltd jointly released the Science Popularization Ethics Initiative. It underscores the importance of upholding the value of ‘S&T for good’, which shows the readiness of professional organizations, national S&T think tanks and science-popularization enterprises to actively participate in the governance of S&T ethics.

1.2 Science communication is an important means for conducting science and technology ethics governance

The ultimate goal of S&T ethics governance is to promote technology for good, steer the advance of technology with appropriate values and progressively spread and disseminate these developmental concepts across society to ensure widespread benefits. Therefore, science communication itself is an important means of promoting values that lead to goodness. On the one hand, it is necessary to express clear value orientations during the communication process, reinforce the dimension of technological development that brings happiness to people's lives, stay vigilant against the dimensions that may pose risks and challenges to human existence, and make efforts to achieve the communicative impact of technology for good. On the other hand, the transmission of values is itself an important part of the content of science communication. Promoting the rational, empirical and exploratory spirit is indeed central to traditional science communication, reflecting science's quest for truth. In contemporary China, science communication must encapsulate the essence of the scientists’ spirit, which includes patriotism, dedication, collaboration and the nurturing of talent. It should also highlight the value orientation of science for good, thereby fully embodying the ethical values that drive S&T.

From the perspective of the public's acceptance of science, traditional science communication focuses more on the transfer of knowledge and skills. For instance, the Outline of the National Action Plan for Scientific Literacy (2006‒2010‒2020) states that citizens possessing ‘basic scientific literacy’ generally refers to learning necessary scientific knowledge, mastering basic scientific methods, establishing scientific thinking and championing the scientific spirit, as well as acquiring the ability to apply them in dealing with practical problems and participating in public affairs. This can be summarized as ‘four scientific qualities’ and ‘two abilities’. In contrast, contemporary science communication places greater emphasis on the values underpinning S&T and stresses the importance of incorporating the value orientation of S&T ethics into the communication process. For example, the Outline of the National Action Plan for Scientific Literacy (2021‒2035) contains a significant amount of content related to socialist core values, the spirit of scientists, research integrity and the construction of S&T ethics, placing a stronger emphasis on communicating the value orientation of S&T development to the public. As members of the public learn scientific knowledge, master scientific methods, establish scientific thinking and champion the scientific spirit, they are also internalizing the value of technology for good, thereby forming a complete scientific perspective. It is through such a communicative process that society cultivates a culture that advocates the idea of ‘technology for good’ and remains vigilant against technological risks, ultimately fulfilling the mission of developing technology for the betterment of humanity.

1.3 The transmission of values in science communication has become an urgent priority for the governance of science and technology ethics

Currently, the impact of S&T on society is deepening, and the uncertainties, obscurities, delays and complexities of risks arising from the research and application of S&T are becoming increasingly prominent (Wang and Cao, 2021), bringing a series of challenges to the development and governance of S&T. Therefore, the value orientation of S&T ethics has become a vital aspect of S&T governance, seamlessly integrating into the whole process of technological development and every dimension of S&T governance. An increasing number of countries and international organizations are highlighting the values that should guide technological development by issuing declarations and initiatives on S&T ethics, which have pointed out the direction for the conduct of S&T activities (Liu and Li, 2023).

Science communication, as an important part of technological development, is both an object of S&T ethics governance and an important means for communicating ethical values. The basic function of communication includes the transmission and reception of values, which aligns closely with the core objectives of S&T ethics governance. Therefore, clarifying the content and process of value transmission in science communication is of great significance to the governance of S&T ethics. However, both academic research and practice have not yet given due attention to the transmission of values in science communication. From existing research, there is a scarcity of content on this topic, either focusing on the connotations, concepts and norms of popular science ethics (Li and Ma, 2020; Liu et al., 2020; Wang and Li, 2023) or addressing only the changes in the content and means of science communication or the challenges faced (Jin and Shu, 2024; Tang, 2022). Discussions in communication studies tend to focus more on the impact of new technologies and media on communication ethics (Li and Liu, 2024; Liu, 2022; Peng, 2023), while the content on the transmission of value concepts is reflected more in educational discussions, involving mainly issues of transmission methods and effectiveness (Bi and Li, 2016; Lin, 2018; Xiao et al., 2024).

At the practical level, the transmission of ethical values in science communication is still limited to policy documents and initiatives, and yet to become a consensus or basic guideline of the industry. A survey conducted by the National Academy of Innovation Strategy of CAST at the end of 2022 shows that popular-science workers generally recognize the importance of ethical issues in the process of science communication; nearly 80% expressed clear opposition to the notion that ‘the focus of the science popularization process is to disseminate scientific knowledge, and there is no need to be bothered by ethical and moral issues’. However, the understanding of popular science ethics, S&T ethics and communication ethics among popular-science workers is generally low. Only 12.2% of them said that they ‘know fairly well’ or ‘know very well’ about popular-science ethics; 47% said that they ‘had not heard of’ communication ethics, only 5.8% stated that they ‘know fairly well’ about communication ethics, and no one stated that they ‘know very well’ about communication ethics; only 7.3% suggested that they ‘know fairly well’ or ‘know very well’ about S&T ethics. This shows that, at both theoretical and practical levels, the transmission of ethical values in science communication is an issue that requires urgent attention and a subject that needs to be addressed in the governance of S&T ethics.

2. The core values to be transmitted in contemporary science communication and their characteristics

2.1 The core values to be transmitted

The values of S&T ethics represent people's understanding and judgement of the fundamental purposes and significance of S&T innovation. These values are influenced by various factors, including the historical background and the political, economic, cultural and social development levels of different countries and regions (Hu, 2020), and the modes and content of their communication continue to evolve with the times. Overall, when the transmission of values aligns with the stage of technological development, local cultural traditions and the level of socio-economic development at the time, it would conform to the laws of technological development and make a positive impact on technological progress, people's well-being and natural harmony. Conversely, when the transmission of values is out of step with those factors, it would contradict the laws of technological development and negatively affect, to varying degrees, technological progress, people's lives and the ecological environment (Xu, 2020).

Considering the guiding philosophy and status of S&T development in contemporary China, and with reference to the Opinions on Strengthening the Governance of Science and Technology Ethics and the Science Popularization Ethics Initiative, the core values that need to be transmitted in science communication include enhancing human welfare, respecting the right to life, upholding fairness and justice, maintaining openness and transparency and properly controlling risks. From the perspective of value orientation, four out of the five basic values have highlighted the positive values that technology development should pursue or uphold, including human welfare, the right to life, fairness and justice, and openness and transparency. The last one, which addresses risks, underscores the negative values that may arise from technology development. In terms of the subject of these values, the protection of human welfare and the right to life places greater emphasis on the rights and interests of every individual, reflecting the most fundamental value in the process where S&T affect human survival, production and life. Fairness, justice and risk control focus more on the basic norms that must be followed to ensure order in S&T activities, which demonstrates that S&T ethics constitutes a distinct dimension for the collective expression of values within S&T governance. The safeguards of openness and transparency highlight the need to maintain activity at the interface between the scientific community and the public. It encapsulates the sophisticated idea of blending the holistic development of S&T with human cultural heritage and exemplifies the dialectical unity between the advancement of technology and the progress of humanity (Liu and Li, 2023).

2.2 Characteristics of the core values

Considering the fundamental journey of S&T advances from their inception to their dissemination, science communication should objectively transmit the intrinsic value orientations embedded within these fields. Yet, acknowledging the inherent differences between the communication process and the process of S&T innovation, it is essential to account for the factors that could be introduced by the methods and media of communication, thereby ensuring the ultimate efficacy of value transmission. Looking at the five basic values that need to be transmitted through science communication, the following factors should be considered.

In terms of the betterment of human welfare, it is necessary to consider the context of communication in the light of local conditions. It is true that the development of S&T should serve the interests of the common human community, and that S&T workers from all countries and regions should engage in the cause of technological innovation with the readiness to create a common wealth for all mankind. However, as the French scientist Louis Pasteur once said, ‘If science has no country, the scientist should have one.’ The development of S&T must adhere to the universal values of humanity on a conceptual plane, while also honouring the cultural backdrop, public order and local customs of the respective country or region in practical terms. Additionally, it is crucial to recognize how those universal values are specifically embodied within the local context.

In terms of respect for the right to life, it is necessary to distinguish between the context of scientific research and the context of science communication. Respect for the right to life in scientific research and technological development is usually outcome-oriented, such as whether the experimental process has followed the ethical principles for the subjects. However, science communication is essentially a process of transmitting S&T knowledge in the form of cultural products, where the form and outcome are equally important. For instance, a laboratory that utilizes donated human bodies for research purposes does not violate the right to life. However, if those bodies are used for public display, there is a risk of infringing upon the dignity of life. The intention to objectively present scientific knowledge can inadvertently lead to negative value transmission.

In terms of upholding fairness and justice, it is necessary to take into full account the receptive capacities of different audience groups. While the ideal of S&T development is guided by Merton's principles of universalism and communism, in practice, it is not feasible to disseminate S&T to all audiences in an undifferentiated manner through a single, centralized broadcast. It is essential to tailor the communication of knowledge to the varying receptive capacities of different groups, ensuring that the pursuit of truth does not fall short of its aim to transmit beneficial values. For example, when presenting life sciences, it is crucial to consider the sensitivities of diverse age groups and to avoid expressions that, despite being factually accurate, might be considered inappropriate due to their bluntness.

In terms of maintaining openness and transparency, it is necessary to clearly distinguish the attributes of controversies within and outside the scientific community. Scientific achievements are not made overnight, and controversy has always been an essential part of scientific research. Scientific controversies originate from within the scientific community, representing a necessary process for scientists to exchange their ideas, viewpoints and thoughts. With the rise of citizen participation in the era of big science, some S&T issues closely related to people's livelihoods can trigger social controversies, such as the ‘not-in-my-backyard’ effect of public opposition to the location of nuclear power plants. Although the communication of S&T content must be open and transparent, it is crucial to strictly differentiate between controversies within and outside the scientific community, maintaining an appropriate level of transparency for issues that are still contentious within the scientific community to prevent deeper and wider misunderstanding.

In terms of properly controlling risks, it is necessary to deeply understand the characteristics of non-static scientific knowledge. The evolution of scientific knowledge shows that it is not static; even well-established scientific theories can be overturned by new discoveries. Therefore, in communication, it is important to consider how expressions aimed at the public can be more accurate and less likely to cause misunderstandings. Only by recognizing the dynamic nature of scientific theories and cutting-edge knowledge can we distinguish them during the communication process and avoid causing public misunderstandings due to strict adherence to ethical principles.

3. The process of value transmission in contemporary science communication

3.1 The goals of value transmission

While effectively transmitting values to the public through science communication is a key link and important means to achieve governance of S&T ethics, the goals of value transmission extend beyond generating the effects of such governance. Considering the essence of human moral education, the objectives of value transmission can be stratified into three distinct tiers. The first tier focuses on moral awakening and the elevation of ethical standards. Embracing the value of technology as a force for good signifies a profound understanding and appreciation of the underlying concepts and ultimate goals of technological advancement. That in-depth understanding can foster a more intricate awareness of the interplay between technology and human society, as well as between technology and the natural environment, thereby shaping foundational perspectives on nature and science. The second tier involves the internalization of normative perceptions and adherence to ethical boundaries. Embracing the value connotations of S&T ethics means possessing a foundational understanding and a profound endorsement of the institutional development of modern science and recognizing the fundamental principles that underpin the social structures of academic disciplines in the era of big science, as well as the social responsibilities that contemporary scientists undertake, thus shaping a holistic view of the interplay between science and society. The third tier pertains to frontier exploration and the augmentation of practical wisdom. The progression of S&T is a never-ending endeavour in which cutting-edge fields continually face the value challenges posed by novel S&T advances and innovations. Embracing the foundational value pursuit inherent in S&T ethics means being able to conduct frontier explorations flexibly and make value judgements in new technological practices, based on a profound understanding of the core principles that technology should serve as a force for good and be exercised with responsibility.

3.2 The process of value transmission

Communication is a ‘flow process of human information’ (Hu et al., 2008: 63)—a process of two-way exchange and sharing of information—and the emphasis is on the sharing and dissemination of information. Communication itself is lifeless; its uniqueness lies in the information that people inject into the communicative relationship. Information itself has no meaning; its meaning comes from people (Schramm and Potter, 2010). The purpose of communication is to elicit changes; that is, the realization of communication effects. Communication is inseparable from symbols and the medium, to the extent that it can be said that ‘the medium is the message’ (McLuhan, 2000). From the perspective of communication studies, communication models have different manifestations based on their viewpoints and research methods. Whether it is the linear one-way communication model (Lasswell's ‘5W’ model, which was most representative of the initial stage) or the circular model and more intricate social-communication systems, the key influencing factors of communication remain the communicator, the content, the medium and the audience (McQuail and Windah, 1987).

Science communication is an activity that aims to enhance citizens’ scientific literacy, with ‘four scientific qualities’, ‘two abilities’ and scientific values as the main content and the general public as the audience. It is a process that achieves information sharing among different individuals through the diffusion of S&T knowledge and information (Ren and Zhai, 2014). It is highly similar to educational activities, through which educators impart knowledge, skills and ideas to learners. Hence, it becomes evident that science communication inherently shares the characteristics of educational endeavours. Drawing on the theories of education science, the value-transmission process in science communication should focus on three aspects. First, the specificity of content. The content of science communication reflects the scientific spirit and ethical norms of a particular period, constantly adjusting with the development of S&T and the evolution of ethical consciousness. Second, clear purposefulness. The purpose of value transmission in science communication is to cultivate in the public a scientific spirit and an awareness of S&T ethics that align with the societal needs of a given era, imbuing the process with a clearer and more robust sense of purpose. Third, the need for systematic guidance and control. Given that the public, as the audience of science communication, is influenced to varying degrees by factors such as age, region, education level and disciplinary background, its acceptance and recognition of S&T ethics are more prone to influence and interference, which makes the transmission of values more challenging and intricate than the dissemination of other forms of information. Consequently, systematic guidance and control are essential throughout the communication process. This requires the value-transmission process in science communication to adopt content with the right values and rigorously manage the selection, decoding, dissemination and feedback of information to guarantee the effectiveness of communication.

In summary, the value-transmission process in science communication is a complex system composed of the subject, content, media and audience of communication. Its role in shaping and nurturing the public's mind-set, values and ethical behaviour is realized through the selection and dissemination of information content, followed by the audience's acceptance, recognition and internalization of that content, leading ultimately to a transformation in behaviour. This systematic process ensures the effectiveness of value transmission within the realm of science communication.

3.3 The impact of the new technological revolution on the process of value transmission

First, the technological substitution of human behaviour in the new technological revolution has ascended from the physical to the cognitive level. In the early days, industrial and technological revolutions provided substitution for human labour mainly through mechanization and automation technologies. For instance, steam engines and electric machinery replaced manual labour, giving a strong boost to production efficiency. However, with the development of artificial intelligence (AI), machine learning and ‘big data’ technologies, technological substitution has gradually ascended from the physical to the cognitive level. Machines and algorithms have begun to perform some of the work carried out by human brains, such as data analysis, decision-making support and language translation. Digital technology and AI have not only reshaped the dynamic between humans and technology, traditionally viewed as a master–servant relationship, but have also disrupted the conventional societal framework that revolves around learning, cognition and control and posed a challenge to the unique status that humans have long held, predicated on their superior cognitive and decision-making capabilities.

Second, within the new technological revolution, the practice of controlling and transforming natural objects has transitioned from external to intrinsic human endeavours. Genetic editing technologies such as CRISPR enable humans to directly modify the genes of living organisms, including their own. The application of these technologies has expanded from the traditional sectors of agriculture and animal husbandry to medicine and biotechnology, and made a direct impact on human genetic traits. Brain–computer interface technology allows for the direct reading and writing of information from the brain, and even the control of external devices through activities of the brain. This technology enables humans to interact directly with machines, thus altering the relationship between humans and the external world. These cutting-edge technologies have subverted the natural logic of human continuation and evolution, created the possibility of a ‘transhuman revolution’, and posed a significant challenge to the ‘class identity’ of humanity.

Finally, the new technological revolution is reshaping the foundational structure on which human society functions. As digital transformation unfolds, AI algorithms, acting as new ‘rules’, are exerting an influence that reaches beyond the daily life of every individual and extends into the realm of critical public matters, including social dialogue, the distribution of resources and the outcomes of political elections. Unlike traditional rules, such as laws and social customs, which are based on political legitimacy or historical rationality, the rules of AI algorithms rely on virtual data generated out of real-world scenarios and represent a complex combination of technological, social and institutional logics. With the expanded application of new technologies such as digital transformation, smart cities and intelligent governance, the foundational structure of human society is being reshaped, giving rise to a novel sociotechnical framework that integrates the value biases inherent in technological design.

3.4 Challenges in the process of value transmission

In terms of the subjects of communication, the widespread involvement of various subjects has resulted in a significant ‘vacuum’ within the gatekeeping process. In recent years, staying ‘online 24/7’ has become the norm in people's lives, and the rise of we-media technologies represented by platforms such as Weibo, WeChat and short videos has brought about significant changes in the field of communication. We-media is characterized by the democratization and universalization of communication subjects, which empowers the audience and amplifies its voices. Compared to traditional communication models, we-media not only adapts to people's fast-paced lifestyles but also satisfies their demand for information. In this context, the landscape of science communication has evolved, with its participants diversifying from a select group of professional technicians to a broader, non-specialized audience. While traditional media relied on a robust gatekeeping process with dedicated staff and multilayered review protocols, the advent of we-media has seen this mechanism eroded, creating a ‘vacuum’ where misinformation, pseudoscience and content that strays from scientific laws and the scientific spirit can proliferate unchecked.

In terms of the content of communication, the complexity of content reinforces the ‘information cocoon’. At the moment, the phenomenon of an ‘information explosion’ caused by the proliferation of online information coexists with a shortage of information resources. On the one hand, individuals select content and trending topics based on their personal experiences and interests, effectively crafting a ‘bespoke daily newspaper’ from the vast array of information available. On the other hand, algorithms use big data to analyse user behaviour and preferences, and provide customized content that reinforces existing preferences, leading to the formation of numerous ‘information cocoons’. Value transmission in science communication strives for universality and broad appeal, with the goal of conveying its core messages to all members of the public to shape their values and behavioural inclinations. However, the growing prominence of ‘information cocoons’ exacerbates group polarization, posing significant barriers to the effective transmission of values in science communication.

In terms of the means of communication, the heterogeneity of communication means further intensifies group polarization. First, the information-dissemination process is difficult to control; we-media communication is instantaneous, making the process hard to manage. As a result, a large amount of information lacking scientific value could spread rapidly through we-media's instantaneous dissemination. Second, there is a serious imbalance in information dissemination; precise targeting facilitates exposure for certain groups to specific types of information, inadvertently excluding others from the conversation. Third, the digital divide is turning into an information divide; as internet technology continues to expand, the construction of internet infrastructure and the intelligence level of internet entities are widening the digital divide between countries, regions and groups, leading to a new divide between ‘information haves and have-nots’. These factors make mutual understanding and communication among different groups more difficult, thus further intensifying group polarization and social division and adding to the challenge of value transmission.

In terms of the audience of communication, the diversification of the audience makes it difficult to achieve the desired communication effect. In the we-media environment, the audience is exposed to a vast amount of information, and the ability to discern and select information is essential. However, in the case of China, the overall scientific literacy of the public is still relatively low, and people often struggle to discern the vast amount of information on the internet, and thus become the victims of misinformation. When negative media stories about science emerge, they can easily provoke strong reactions, resulting in the frequent occurrence of irrational incidents. In the context of traditional communication, the public passively absorbs information and is significantly swayed by mainstream values. However, in today's landscape, we-media platforms subtly shape the public's value orientations, making it difficult to achieve the desired effects of value transmission.

4. Reinforcing the contemplation of the transmission and governance of ethical values in science communication

Only by accurately grasping the dual nature of contemporary science communication as a vital link in S&T governance and an effective means of S&T ethical governance can we fully recognize the importance of value transmission in science communication, thereby adopting governance principles that meet the requirements of S&T ethics. Building on the value-transmission model of traditional communication studies and facing the immense challenges of the new technological revolution, contemporary science communication needs to delve deeper into the subjects, content, means and target audiences of communication. It is crucial to elucidate the intrinsic connections between the essence of value transmission in the communication process and the diverse challenges that are currently confronted in order to propose more effective countermeasures.

Regarding the subjects of communication, acknowledging the historical context of current issues is imperative. In China, the transition from the popularization of radio and television to the emergence of the internet and mobile internet power has been remarkably swift. With media technology advancing at a breakneck pace and undergoing significant transformations, the rapid change in modes of expression has placed increasingly high demands on the quality of communication subjects. In contrast, although Western countries also underwent profound changes in the form of communication media, the overall timeline was longer. Not only do communication subjects have more time to adapt to new media technologies and the resulting changes in the modes of expression, but there is also ample time to address the governance of science communication. Therefore, while it is important to address the chaos in science communication caused by diverse communication subjects, it is also necessary to view the current phenomena from a deeper historical perspective and a long-term future perspective. It is crucial to differentiate between the temporary pains of the media revolution and the fundamentally significant issues to prevent the amplification of issues that are inherently transitional in nature.

Regarding the content of communication, it is necessary to make a distinction between the challenges posed by the new technological revolution and traditional science communication issues. The ‘information cocoon’ is not a new product of AI technology but a traditional science communication issue amplified and reinforced by new technologies. On the one hand, it is imperative to adopt a more effective strategy that enhances the scientific and cultural literacy of citizens. This strategy should swiftly reorient the focus of science communication from merely imparting knowledge and skills to nurturing a deeper understanding of culture and values. By doing so, we can foster people's capacity to critically evaluate the information they receive and develop rational thinking, thus containing the amplifying effect of the new technological revolution on science communication issues. On the other hand, it is equally important to intensify efforts in AI technology research and development. By leveraging technological tools, we can counteract the swift proliferation of fragmented information and mitigate the erosive and alienating impact of ‘information cocoons’ on the content of science communication.

Regarding the means of communication, it is imperative to bridge the digital divide between different groups with a stronger sense of humanistic care. As technological transformation accelerates, there is a growing risk that the digital divide between demographic groups of varying ages and educational levels will persist and even widen, while potentially giving rise to new types of divides. Group polarization and social fragmentation require not only the production and transmission of differentiated communication content, but also the prioritization of values and visions in the governance of S&T ethics. Crucial to this endeavour is the infusion of principles of fairness and inclusivity into the core of S&T development, ensuring that humanistic care permeates every link in the chain of S&T innovation. By consistently providing humanistic education to scientists and student scientists, we can reconnect with the underlying values shared by both the scientific and the humanistic spirits and discourage the utilitarian tendency in S&T development at its root.

Regarding the target audience of communication, it is imperative to establish a correct value orientation for S&T development with the spirit of scientists at its core. Despite the significant variance in the information received by audience members and their subsequent reactions, it remains feasible to identify the shared values that run through the intricacies of communication content. For positive values that align with the spirit of scientists, we need to foster, bolster and steer the creation of content that reflects these values in order to amplify people's recognition of core values such as patriotism, innovation, realism, dedication, collaboration and a commitment to education. For negative values that run counter to the spirit of scientists, we need to intensify regulatory measures, including by promptly refuting misinformation and conducting investigations to present the factual content to the public. We also need to step up efforts on both the positive and negative fronts to reinforce the right value orientation. For communication content that is value-neutral, we need to ease regulatory constraints while simultaneously reinforcing positive guidance and encourage more communication content to become an active force in promoting positive values.