ArticleProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America2025
An agenda for science communication research and practice.
Article in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Integration of modules on evidence-based vaccine communication strategies in disciplinary microbiology courses: two case studies.Journal of microbiology & biology education · 2026Article
- Representation in science and trust in scientists in the USA.Nature human behaviour · 2026Article
- Public opinion trends in American society: Lessons from social science infrastructure.PNAS nexus · 2026Article
- Introducing "Visual bibliographies" as a novel tool for communicating complexity: a knowledge translation case study from Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander primary health care research.BMC health services research · 2026Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Science should not unilaterally dictate individuals' decisions or public policies. Yet, it provides a vital source of information for societies and individuals that can often improve outcomes and well-being. This requires, however, the effective communication of scientific information. We identify two paradigms for science communication. One focuses on dissemination, often seeking to inform, reframe, or correct beliefs. Another emphasizes participation and engagement with the goal of improving public understanding of science and scientists' understanding of the public's concerns, needs, and values. We argue that participatory approaches better address contemporary challenges concerning scientific uncertainty, politicized science, artificial value neutrality, and a reactive science communication infrastructure. These approaches though need to move away from transactional partnerships toward more cocreation and coproduction of knowledge. They also need to focus more on less motivated and/or engaged populations. Investment in a participatory infrastructure is crucial given that even the most path-breaking science only matters if it can be adequately communicated to relevant stakeholders.
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.