Schedule > Discussion Questions 1

Reading 1: Why should we promote the public understanding of science?

Thomas, G., & Durant, J. (1987). Why should we promote the public understanding of science? Scientific literacy papers, 1, 1-14. Link

  1. What do Thomas and Durant mean by "the public," "understanding," and "science"? How do these definitions shape their overall arguments?

  2. Among the nine benefit-based arguments for promoting public understanding of science, which do you find most convincing or compelling? Conversely, which arguments seem weakest, problematic, or potentially contradictory? Why?

    1. Benefits to science
    2. Benefits to national economies
    3. Benefits to national power and influence
    4. Benefits to individuals
    5. Benefits to democratic government
    6. Benefits to society as a whole
    7. Intellectual benefits
    8. Aesthetic benefits
    9. Moral benefits

  3. The authors critique the idea that understanding automatically leads to approval of science. Can you think of real-world examples where increased scientific understanding did or did not translate into public support?

  4. Thomas and Durant introduce “scientific literacy” as a more precise criterion for assessing public understanding. What components (e.g., knowledge, skills, attitudes) make up a scientifically literate person, according to the paper? Do you agree with their definition of this concept? Are there elements you’d add, remove, or emphasize differently?

  5. Some arguments -- for instance, the moral or aesthetic benefits of science -- were seen as less favored or even unfashionable by the authors. Why might ethical or aesthetic justifications for promoting scientific understanding be controversial or in decline today?

  6. Implications for practice: Based on the arguments and critiques in the article, how should science communicators (e.g., journalists, educators, policy advisors) approach their work differently? What pitfalls should they avoid? What goals should they prioritize?

Reading 2: An agenda for science communication research and practice

Druckman, J. N., Ellenbogen, K. M., Scheufele, D. A., & Yanovitzky, I. (2025). An agenda for science communication research and practice. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 122(27), e2400932122. Link

  1. What are the two paradigms for science communication identified by the authors, and how do they differ in terms of approach, goals, and presumed audience engagement?
  2. Why might top-down dissemination approaches be less effective in today’s information environment? Can you relate that to real-world examples?
  3. Science communication often measures success and failure based on "average effects." Why is this problematic, according to the authors?
  4. The article cites several major challenges, including (a) uncertainty, (b) politicization, and (c) artificial value neutrality.
    • What are some examples of each of these challenges?
    • Which do you see as most pressing, and why?
    • How might participatory approaches help?
  5. The authors critique that participatory approaches often target already-engaged audiences. How might science communication strategies be designed to reach less-motivated or underrepresented groups more effectively?
  6. What's the difference between a "reactive" and a "proactive" communication infrastructure? Why is shifting toward proactive strategies important, according to the article?