Audiences for Science

Science journalists have been accused of putting both science and “objectivity” on a pedestal. Typically, they write for people who are already interested in science, persuaded of its value, and committed to its support. This describes a type of journalist who may fail to appropriately address concerns and controversies and who can sometimes be tempted to function, rather than as society's watchdog, as a sort of public relations agent for promoting science via one-sided messages.

It is thus especially ironic that persuasion research has shown us the most persuasive messages are generally two-sided, acknowledging criticisms as well as supporting arguments.

Support for science is likely to be strongest where people believe that their ethical, environmental, health, safety, economic, and other societal and values-based concerns are being addressed rather than ignored. While members of the attentive or interested public for science described by scholars are likely to be predisposed toward embracing new developments, they are a minority. Science journalism that ignores criticisms, fails to address concerns, and assumes that audiences are in favor of most science is likely to be ineffective in recruiting support—or generating interest—from other segments of the public.

Yet much of science journalism seems to assume a monolithically proscience audience—what we might refer to as the “fans” of science—and ignores the more typical reader who might be very well educated, but who does not always take the value of particular developments in science on faith. In fact, the audiences for science are quite diverse—and different from what science journalists often appear to imagine.

Science news that is written only for the “fans” of science or “converts” to a scientific worldview misses an important opportunity. The idea that a marketplace of ideas promotes healthy democratic debate is well established in liberal democratic theory. Those of us who would like to see broader public awareness and acceptance of a scientific point of view should embrace encouragement of the broadest possible debate and not be tempted to fall back on propagandistic approaches. Public debate, public engagement, and the consideration of criticisms and concerns should be encouraged. This is in the interests of science, as well as in the interests of democracy.

As with most rules, this one may have some exceptions. Sometimes society runs out of time for debate. Experts tell us we must address climate [Page 76]change now, for example. Similarly, looming pandemics, food safety crises, hurricane evacuations, and other societal emergencies call for a swift collective action rather than extended discussion. Yet, in the long run, cultivating public support for science could depend on our being better able to capitalize on opportunities for public deliberation.