Public Engagement on Genetically Modified Organisms When Science and Citizens Connect: Workshop Summary (2015) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
5 How Should Scientists Engage in Conversations about Genetically Modified Organisms?
5 How Should Scientists Engage in Conversations about Genetically Modified Organisms?
Pages 29-36
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 29... ...
how little facts appear to matter in how people make Over the course of both days of the workshop, decisions, she had come to believe that "science the presenters and participants shared their thoughts matters a lot and facts matter a lot, and there is a big on practical take-homes that may help life scientists role for science and scientists in society." She and their supporting institutions to prepare for and reiterated a comment made by David Goldston of conduct public engagement in science. The ideas NRDC that scientists should not overcorrect for the emerged from presentations and panel discussions deficit model and conclude that facts do not matter during the first day of the workshop, from the at all.
|
From page 30... ...
Bringing people with diverse viewpoints together is one way to resist confirmation bias. The context of science communication includes multiple cultures and values.
|
From page 31... ...
Such a repository, perhaps Manage the Communication Process maintained by an academic center or a national Kahan noted that discussion in his breakout science organization, would be vital in ensuring that session focused on the idea that "if you do a good public engagement about potentially controversial job in managing the science-communication science issues is informed by the lessons of social environment, and in particular the stakeholder science from the outset, not as an afterthought, he settings, if you don't just try to impose something on added. Bruce Lewenstein, of Cornell University, people, if you enter into their lives in a way that noted that institutions can also devote the needed shows that you are respectful of and solicitous about time and resources to monitor the sciencetheir stake in what you are doing, you will have a communication landscape that scientists themselves community that is less likely to be vulnerable to do not have.
|
From page 32... ...
Haspel remarked that it is important human tendency to seek confirming information to vet your sources of information and manage your (confirmation bias) is especially important in her media.
|
From page 33... ...
She commented that citrus-greening story written by Amy Harmon23 is so good because "it told Some workshop participants emphasized that it the story not just of a plant but of the people whose is critical for multiple viewpoints to be represented. livings depend on the plants and how they are Engagement and discussion about science issues struggling with the issues." However, the most occur in a large framework in which scientists do not important thing that people can do is talk to one have the only voice, Scheufele stated.
|
From page 34... ...
She added that beginning with common ground does not make everyone in the room agree or care about an issue, Common Ground Encourages Respectful but that "the quality of the fight is better when we Discourse can acknowledge some shared commitments before we begin the really difficult conversation," she said. A number of presenters and workshop participants emphasized that high-quality discourse should be at the heart of public engagement about conversations about food-related technologies, the science issues.
|
From page 35... ...
Box 5-4 Breakout Discussion of Genetically Modified Mosquitoes The breakout discussion report was given by Trevor Butterworth of Sense about Science. Science Context The object of the breakout discussion was the introduction of genetically modified mosquitoes to suppress the spread of Dengue fever, Butterworth explained.
|
From page 36... ...
Cornell University released press statements about both the Losey and Shelton articles, but a mass-media flurry around the Losey article had already taken hold and had a dramatic adverse effect on public perceptions of transgenic corn. The six PNAS papers in 2001 did not receive as much publicity as the Losey paper, probably because they were published around the same time as the 9/11 terrorist attack in New York City.
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.