Kathleen M. Rose

U.S. attitudes on human genome editing

Although views on human genome editing differ, all want public engagement The emergence of CRISPR-Cas9 gene editing has given new urgency to calls from social scientists, bench scientists, and scientific associations for broad public dialogue about human genome editing and its applications. Most recently, these calls were formalized in a consensus report on the science, ethics, and governance of human genome editing released by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences (NAS) and the National Academy of Medicine (NAM) that argued for public engagement to be incorporated into the policy-making process for human genome editing (1). So, where does the public stand on the issue of human genome editing? And how do those attitudes translate into the desire for more public input on human genome editing as new applications emerge in the policy arena?

The case of #arseniclife: Blogs and Twitter in informal peer review.

Using the “#arseniclife” controversy as a case study, we examine the roles of blogs and Twitter in post-publication review. The controversy was initiated by a scientific article about bacteria able to substitute arsenic for phosphorus in its genetic material. We present the debate chronologically, using prominent online media to reconstruct the events. Using tweets that discussed the controversy, we conducted quantitative sentiment analysis to examine skeptical and non-skeptical tones on Twitter. Critiques of and studies refuting the arsenic life hypothesis were publicized on blogs before formal publication in traditional academic spaces and were shared on Twitter, influencing issue salience among a range of audiences. This case exemplifies the role of new media in informal post-publication peer review, which can complement traditional peer review processes. The implications drawn from this case study for future conduct and transparency of both formal and informal peer review are discussed.

Mapping the Landscape of Public Attitudes on Synthetic Biology

Abstract This research offers one of the first analyses of the US publics views about synthetic biology, based on nationally representative survey data. We provide in‐depth, multiyear descriptive results of public attitudes toward this issue and compare them with individuals’ attitudes toward other issues. Our data indicate that the public does not generally feel informed about synthetic biology or believe it is personally important. However, Americans express more reservations about the moral downside of synthetic biology than about other issues. Multivariate analysis reveals that values and predispositions—particularly religiosity, deference to scientific authority and trust in scientists—are linked to support for synthetic biology. We also see evidence indicating that deference to scientific authority reduces the potential for religiosity and distrust in scientists to polarize public attitudes about synthetic biology. We conclude by describing the implications of our findings for the development of synthetic biology research and upstream public engagement.

Engaging the Public at a Science Festival: Findings From a Panel on Human Gene Editing

Theoretically and methodologically sound research on the reach and impact of public engagement practices continues to lag behind. Using the 2015 Wisconsin Science Festival as context, we empirically investigate the impacts of a public engagement activity about a nascent and controversial scientific issue, human gene editing. Overall, we find the panel increased participants’ understanding of the complexities of human gene editing, as demonstrated by increases in knowledge and the moral acceptability of the technology among respondents, as well as the associated risk and benefit perceptions. Practical and theoretical implications for science festivals and public engagement with science activities are discussed.

How do policymakers and think tank stakeholders prioritize the risks of the nuclear fuel cycle? A semantic network analysis

In recent years, the importance of stakeholder involvement and of integrating diverse perspectives into risk management has gained increasing recognition. However, it remains a challenging task to identify all potentially relevant stakeholders and to reliably describe their deeply held beliefs regarding the risks associated with complex industrial systems. For example, the development of advanced nuclear fuel cycles presents such a case. Based on a review of policy-making literatures and a content analysis of congressional records, we identify federal agencies and nonprofit policy institutes (also known as ‘think tanks’) as key stakeholders that are representative of those actively involved in making high-level decisions on the US nuclear energy policy. Using a semantic network analysis approach, we visually delineate the thematic areas of each party’s perceptions concerning fuel cycle risks. The results show that although governmental and think tank stakeholders share common concerns in areas such as nuclear waste management, the economics of nuclear facilities, and proliferation, they tend to focus on distinct aspects of each area. Moreover, while governmental stakeholders are primarily concerned with the environmental and local impacts of nuclear fuel cycles, think tank stakeholders focus more on the relative advantages and disadvantages of nuclear energy compared to other alternative energy options. Implications for risk management and risk communication are discussed.

Uncivil and personal? Comparing patterns of incivility in comments on the Facebook pages of news outlets:

Social media and its embedded user commentary are playing increasingly influential roles in the news process. However, researchers’ understanding of the social media commenting environment remains limited, despite rising concerns over uncivil comments. Accordingly, this study used a supervised machine learning–based method of content analysis to examine the extent and patterns of incivility in the comment sections of 42 US news outlets’ Facebook pages over an 18-month period in 2015–2016. These outlets were selected as being broadly representative of national, local, conservative, and liberal-news media. The findings provide the first empirical evidence that both the level and the targets of incivility in the comments posted on news outlets’ Facebook pages vary greatly according to such entities’ general type and ideological stance.

Communicating data: interactive infographics, scientific data and credibility

Information visualization could be used to leverage the credibility of displayed scientific data. However, little was known about how display characteristics interact with individuals’ predispositions to affect perception of data credibility. Using an experiment with 517 participants, we tested perceptions of data credibility by manipulating data visualizations related to the issue of nuclear fuel cycle based on three characteristics: graph format, graph interactivity, and source attribution. Results showed that viewers tend to rely on preexisting levels of trust and peripheral cues, such as source attribution, to judge the credibility of shown data, whereas their comprehension level did not relate to perception of data credibility. We discussed the implications for science communicators and design professionals. Abstract

The Values of Synthetic Biology: Researcher Views of Their Field and Participation in Public Engagement

The synthetic biology research community will influence the future development of synthetic biology and its emergence into the sociopolitical and regulatory arenas. Because of this influence, we provide a first look at those involved in the research field – their views regarding the field and interactions with the public – using a unique sample of U.S.-based researchers who have published in the broad field of synthetic biology. Our data indicates a range of views of the moral and regulatory aspects of the science, based in part on various values and professional judgements, with differences emerging across synthetic biologists (e.g., bench scientists, computer scientists) and researchers focusing on ethical, legal, and social implications (ELSI). Importantly, the researchers are engaged in public outreach activities, which could provide opportunities for public discourse on the sociopolitical aspects of synthetic biology. Implications of these findings for the future of the technology and upstream engagement emerge.

The influence of temperature on #ClimateChange and #GlobalWarming discourses on Twitter

Research suggests non-experts associate different content with the terms “global warming” and “climate change.” We test this claim with Twitter content using supervised learning software to categorize tweets by topic and explore differences between content using “global warming” and “climate change” between 1 January 2012 and 31 March 2014. Twitter data were combined with temperature records to observe the extent to which temperature was associated with Twitter discussions. We then used two case studies to examine the relationship between extreme temperature events and Twitter content. Our findings underscore the importance of considering climate change communication on social media. Abstract

New Media Audiences’ Perceptions of Male and Female Scientists in Two Sci-Fi Movies

Portrayals of female scientists in science fiction tend to be rare and often distorted. Our research investigates the social media discourse related to public perceptions of the portrayals of scientists in science fiction. We explore the following questions: How does audience discourse about a female scientist protagonist in a science fiction film compare with that about a male scientist in a comparable movie? And, what fraction of discourse in each case is dedicated to (a) comments on physical appearance and (b) incredulity that the character is a scientist? Using automated nonparametric sentiment analysis software that employs an intelligent algorithm informed by human coding, we analyze Twitter discourse around the release of two summer 2011 science fiction blockbusters with scientists in lead roles: Thor and Rise of the Planet of the Apes. Although scholars have pointed to sexualized portrayals of women scientists in popular media, we found relatively few mentions of the attractiveness of an admittedly attractive female scientist. Additionally, audience discourse was not centered on the implausibility of the female scientist. This is particularly meaningful when combined with previous research showing that strong women in lead roles do not decrease profitability of science fiction films.