The Annenberg Public Policy Center has released a pair of Science Media Monitor reports analyzing how the news media cover the ethical questions surrounding gene editing with CRISRP/Cas9, and scientific retractions.
Experiencing extreme weather is not enough to convince climate change skeptics that humans are damaging the environment, according to a new study based on APPC research.
Public sentiment on GMOs shifted following the release of a consensus report by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, a study finds.
APPC has launched the Annenberg Science Media Monitor to analyze the content of news reporting on science. The first report focuses on coverage of scientific discovery.
An analysis in PNAS of how the media cover science considers whether scientific self-correction is contributing to a flawed narrative and inadvertently undermining public trust in science.
Research from two APPC distinguished research fellows shows that Americans' understanding of evolution - as well as their politics and/or religion - is tied to their acceptance or rejection of it.
APPC Director Kathleen Hall Jamieson moderated a panel focusing on threats to science's reputation at the National Academy of Sciences Arthur M. Sackler Colloquium on the Science of Science Communication.
In an article for the journal Politics and the Life Sciences, Kathleen Hall Jamieson looks at the role that language plays when science is conveyed to the public. Examples include the outbreak of "mad cow" disease in Britain.
Gene editing, vaccinations, climate change: All are science issues enmeshed in political controversy. How should scientists try to convey the best available evidence? The editors of the Oxford Handbook of the Science of Science Communication discuss the field.
In a commentary in Nature Climate Change, two recent APPC postdocs say the encyclical stressed moral values that appeal to liberals but not the three values -- sanctity, authority and loyalty -- that resonate with conservatives.