Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40298026›Full record

ArticlePublic understanding of science (Bristol, England)2025

Science communication, politics and power: Social justice perspectives.

Emily Dawson, Simon Lock

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Public understanding of science (Bristol, England), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Science communication in the wild.Public understanding of science (Bristol, England) · 2026
    Article
  2. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Emily DawsonUniversity College London, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-7152-6032
Simon LockUniversity College London, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-2645-8549

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Concerns about social justice are long standing across many fields. In this article, we outline key social justice concepts in relation to science communication, before examining the politics of science and science communication in more detail. We argue more focus is needed on how certain forms of politics and power travel through science and science communication in ways that have created, reinforced and/or ameliorated structural inequities. We argue that foregrounding social justice perspectives helps make explicit the power dynamics involved in creating and communicating knowledge. For us, this is a purposeful move that resists the urge to tidy away, 'naturalise' or otherwise hide politics and power. We invite readers to collectively interrogate our existing science communication theories and practices with a view to transforming them to be more just and meaningfully improve people's lives and ecosystems.

Indexed as

CommunicationPoliticsPower, PsychologicalScienceSocial JusticeHumansinequalityinequitypoliticspowerscience communicationsocial justice

Identifiers

PMID40298026
PMCPMC12041610

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.