ArticleInfectious agents and cancer2025
Why science must speak differently.
Article in Infectious agents and cancer, 2025. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted the complexities surrounding public trust in science, particularly in the context of overwhelming data and political polarization. The call to “trust the science” emerged as both a symbol of confidence and a source of public tension, exposing the challenges in communicating scientific uncertainty, data interpretation, and expertise. This paper examines the critical role of communication in shaping public perceptions of science, emphasizing the need for epistemic humility and transparency in the face of uncertainty. While data availability increased, the real challenge lay in its interpretation and the framing of scientific messages for diverse audiences. The paper argues that health crises, such as COVID-19 and the resurgence of West Nile Virus, demonstrate that information overload and poor communication can lead to confusion, mistrust, and the politicization of science. Effective science communication must transcend purely rational approaches and address emotional and social factors through persuasive strategies, including emotional appeals and interactive tools. Moreover, the structural transformation of information flows in digital societies, epitomized by the concept of “infocracy”, exacerbates the challenge of maintaining public trust in science. The paper calls for a reimagined approach to science communication that prioritizes clarity, context, and responsible engagement, fostering a more informed, resilient, and critically engaged public.
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.