ArticleEnvironmental health perspectives2024
Words Matter: Reflective Science Communication and Tradeoffs in Environmental Health Research.
Article in Environmental health perspectives, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundScientists who communicate societally relevant information face challenging contexts in which misinformation, disinformation, hype, and spin are prevalent. As a result, they often face difficult decisions about how to frame their work in a socially responsible manner.
objectivesDrawing from the literature on science communication and framing, we identify tradeoffs that environmental health scientists face when deciding how to communicate their work, and we propose strategies for handling these tradeoffs. We use research on the human health effects of environmental endocrine disruptors as a case study to illustrate these challenges and strategies. DISCUSSION: We examine four major frames (i.e., ways of packaging information that draw attention to facets of an issue or topic) in discussions of the effects of endocrine-disrupting chemicals on sexual and neural development and obesity. We show how these frames can be beneficial (e.g., focusing public attention on environmental health threats and promoting actions to address environmental pollution) while simultaneously having harmful effects (e.g., contributing to stigmatization of particular groups or the promotion of harmful political ideologies).
conclusionsResearchers who seek to responsibly communicate societally relevant work can employ several strategies to mitigate difficult tradeoffs, including
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.