In 2014, the Annenberg Public Policy Center opened an area of study in the Science of Science Communication, to investigate how scientific evidence can be more effectively conveyed to the public. This research looks at the failure to dispel public controversy over such issues as climate change, vaccinations, and genetically modified organisms (GMOs) despite the presence of valid, compelling and widely accessible scientific evidence. “There’s a persistent gap between expert knowledge of scientific issues and public perception on myriad issues,” APPC director Kathleen Hall Jamieson said. “Through empirical testing, we will examine ways to close this gap and separate the issues in communicating science from the evidence that is being presented.” This research builds on past APPC projects such as the dissemination of media guidelines for suicide coverage, and the Annenberg Health Communication wiki, a site to help professional health communicators make better use of state-of-the-art social science. Current projects include the Annenberg Science Knowledge survey on issues of importance such as Zika virus, genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and vaccination, and the Science Media Monitor, which analyzes news coverage of science to increase public understanding of the scientific process.
People who relied on conservative or social media in the early days of the COVID-19 outbreak were more likely to be misinformed about how to prevent the virus and believe conspiracy theories about it, a study of media use and public knowledge has found.
In the 2016 election cycle, Russian Twitter trolls sent targeted pro- and anti-vaccination tweets via various fake persona types, poisoning the kind of crisis communications that may be critical today in the coronavirus pandemic.
People who rely on social media for information were more likely to be misinformed about vaccines than those who rely on traditional media, according to new research by the Annenberg Public Policy Center.
A new publication from APPC's Annenberg Science Media Monitor analyzes how the news media have presented different narratives about science, from discovery to retractions, from identifying problems in research to "problem explored": how science seeks solutions or is self-correcting.
An updated Annenberg Science Media Monitor on retractions of scientific findings found just 38% of the articles analyzed indicated how the errors or misconduct occurred.
In an effort to increase public understanding of the scientific process, the Annenberg Science Media Monitor has published reports seeking to improve science reporting in the news media.
In its fourth report, the Annenberg Science Media Monitor focuses on media reports about crisis and self-correction in science and efforts to address them.
To sustain trust in science, scientists must more clearly show the public -- and each other -- that they honor scientific norms, Kathleen Hall Jamieson and other scholars assert in an article in PNAS.