ArticlePloS one2014
Understanding public opinion in debates over biomedical research: looking beyond political partisanship to focus on beliefs about science and society.
Article in PloS one, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
14 citing papers in PubMed.
- Trust in science during the COVID-19 pandemic: A typology of internet users in South Africa.PloS one · 2026Article
- Normative influence in a time of distrust and polarization: how perceived social norms predict COVID-19 vaccination intentions among Black Americans.Journal of behavioral medicine · 2025Article
- Are science communication audiences becoming more critical? Reconstructing migration between audience segments based on Swiss panel data.Public understanding of science (Bristol, England) · 2022Article
- The polarizing impact of numeracy, economic literacy, and science literacy on the perception of immigration.PloS one · 2022Article
- A Relational Identity-Based Solution to Group Polarization: Can Priming Parental Identity Reduce the Partisan Gap in Attitudes Toward the COVID-19 Pandemic.Science communication · 2021Article
- Attitudes toward genomics and precision medicine.Journal of clinical and translational science · 2021Article
- Why are the public so positive about colorectal cancer screening?BMC public health · 2018Article
- Supporting Citizens in Reflection on Synthetic Biology by Means of Video-Narratives.Science communication · 2017Article
- Religion and the public ethics of stem-cell research: Attitudes in Europe, Canada and the United States.PloS one · 2017Article
- Commentary: Grand challenge: ELSI in a changing global environment.Frontiers in genetics · 2017Article
- Article
- Human Cardiomyocytes Prior to Birth by Integration-Free Reprogramming of Amniotic Fluid Cells.Stem cells translational medicine · 2016Article
- The Dutch public are positive about the colorectal cancer-screening programme, but is this a well-informed opinion?BMC public health · 2016Article
- Research ethics and stem cells: Is it time to re-think current approaches to oversight?EMBO reports · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
As social scientists have investigated the political and social factors influencing public opinion in science-related policy debates, there has been growing interest in the implications of this research for public communication and outreach. Given the level of political polarization in the United States, much of the focus has been on partisan differences in public opinion, the strategies employed by political leaders and advocates that promote those differences, and the counter-strategies for overcoming them. Yet this focus on partisan differences tends to overlook the processes by which core beliefs about science and society impact public opinion and how these schema are often activated by specific frames of reference embedded in media coverage and popular discourse. In this study, analyzing cross-sectional, nationally representative survey data collected between 2002 and 2010, we investigate the relative influence of political partisanship and science-related schema on Americans' support for embryonic stem cell research. In comparison to the influence of partisan identity, our findings suggest that generalized beliefs about science and society were more chronically accessible, less volatile in relation to media attention and focusing events, and an overall stronger influence on public opinion. Classifying respondents into four unique audience groups based on their beliefs about science and society, we additionally find that individuals within each of these groups split relatively evenly by partisanship but differ on other important dimensions. The implications for public engagement and future research on controversies related to biomedical science are discussed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.