Management Benchmark Study-Book Summary Chapter 17-Literature, Summaries of Benchmarking

Download Management Benchmark Study-Book Summary Chapter 17-Literature and more Summaries Benchmarking in PDF only on Docsity! Ch 17 Communicating Science 06.10.02.doc 06.10.02 Chapter 17. Communicating Science1 By Michael Weigold2 Media messages about science have long attracted attention from communication scholars (Cronholm and Sandell 1981; Grunig 1979, 1983; Jerome 1986; Lewenstein 1992). Perhaps this is surprising, since the attention given science in most news media is small in comparison to that accorded to business, politics, or even sports and entertainment. But scholars in this area argue that the importance of science news is poorly benchmarked by the attention it receives in most mass media. In an era of unprecedented technological and scientific advances, many of which have the potential to radically change human existence, science news is important. Communicating about science and the scientific enterprise is an important responsibility of public science organizations. Although many organizations have communication specialists to help with this responsibility, managers are frequently called upon to decide what information is to be provided to whom, by whom, and in what form. Indeed, they are often called upon to be spokespersons for their organizations. Yet they are often unprepared to meet journalists’ demands for non-technical language, conciseness, and short deadlines. Much science news does not get covered in the mainstream press and may not reach science-interested audiences. Media Coverage of Science: A Brief History News media have historically accorded science great importance. In the 19th century, newspapers reprinted lectures of Thomas Huxley, Louis Agassiz and Asa Gray, and one issue of the New York Tribune published the text of physics lectures by John Tyndall. During the 1920s press magnate Edwin W. Scripps launched the Science Service, a news agency offering the “drama [that] lurks in every test tube.” Science coverage may have reached its zenith during the Second World War, when science and technology were seen as integral to victory (Shortland and Gregory 1991). The launching of Sputnik led to a reevaluation of science education in the United States and to renewed interest in science generally. Modern news organizations are more likely to view science as a “niche” area. Thus, in larger news organizations science may be covered by a beat reporter while in smaller organizations reporting is more typically handled by a general assignment reporter or through the use of wire services (Friedman 1986). The medium also affects the quality and amount of science news. Most in-depth reporting is done by newsmagazines, followed by large national papers. Wires, small dailies, and broadcast stations are least likely to have the time or money for in-depth science coverage (Ward 1992). Science news competes with other kinds of news for a relatively tiny amount of space/time. Friedman (1986) estimates that perhaps five percent of a typical newspaper is reserved for news of the day. Most papers thus place heavy emphasis on story brevity and simplicity. Coverage of issues in broadcast reports is even tighter. Because audiences for science stories often require considerable background information, science writers face a difficult challenge. 1 Related chapters include: Strategy; Alliances, Partnerships, and Networks; Participative Management and Employee and Stakeholder Involvement; Organizational Culture; Organizational Communication. 2 Associate Professor, Department of Advertising, University of Florida Ch 17 Communicating Science 06.10.02.doc 2 06.10.02 Several researchers have raised the “gatekeeping” question: how does news from the environment, including news about science, pass through the editorial gate to become content? Shoemaker and Reese (1991) suggest that all news organizations rely on the following “craft norms” for generating news: • Prominence/importance (How many lives are affected? Fatalities are “worth” more than property damage. Actions of the powerful are more newsworthy than actions of ordinary people or the poor) • Human interest (including the activities of people with no direct impact upon audience member’s life other than that created by their own fame, i.e., celebrities, gossip, human dramas) • Conflict/controversy (conflict is presumed to alert audiences to important issues. It is also believed to be inherently more interesting than harmony) • The unusual (David 1996) • Timeliness • Proximity (events that happen nearby are considered more newsworthy). Research has confirmed that these criteria are relevant for a newspaper’s decision about science coverage (Singer et al. 1991a; Ramsey 1989). Other constraints that influence news selection include the complexity of deadlines, unpredictability of occurrences, and the organization's ability to adapt to physical limits, including limits of time and space (Liebler and Bendix 1997). Reporters rely on routines that provide access to news, such as press conferences, announcements, and scientific meetings. Because of limits of time and resources, reporters often work from “predefined angles” or frames that provide themes around which to build stories (Baker 1986; Shoemaker and Reese 1991). News organizations also rely heavily upon each other for ideas. Gans (1979) argued that editors read elite media such as the New York Times and Washington Post for story ideas, eliminating the need for an independent judgment of newsworthiness, a function described by media scholars as “inter-media” agenda setting (Shoemaker and Reese 1991). This was supported by Breed’s (1980) findings that editors of smaller papers use larger city papers to guide them. Modern coverage of science varies considerably within and across media. Larger newspapers with more resources and better educated readers, such as the New York Times, “will cater to an audience interested in reading about some advances in science or medicine that will be ignored by the editors of the New York Daily News” (Burkett 1986:12). Newspapers that carry regular science sections also give greater coverage to science in the news section of the paper in comparison to papers without science coverage (Bader 1990). This is especially the case for stories about basic research rather than more applied topics. Magazine writers draw upon images of their audiences even more narrowly, although even within newsweeklies there is variation; for example, Time uses more scientific terms without translation than Newsweek (Burkett 1986). TV news, with its small news hole, often squeezes coverage of science to its bare minimum (Altheide 1976). Specialty magazines offer some of the richest and most sophisticated coverage of science for general audiences. Scientific American employs editors, but it is scientists, not reporters, who write the stories. Less-knowledgeable readers who might have difficulty with Scientific American can still satisfy their curiosity with "popularized" magazines such as Science Digest, Discover, Omni, and Popular Science (Burkett 1986). Ch 17 Communicating Science 06.10.02.doc 5 06.10.02 vulnerable to the anti-science messages of those who would cut science funding. Since most adults encounter science information only from media coverage, ignorance is best reduced via effective communication about science. Effective communication would help adult non-scientists to become more literate about what scientists “know.” The model's appeal is enhanced by findings that show widespread scientific illiteracy in major democracies (Hartz and Chappell 1997) and by evidence that attitudes toward science may be growing more negative (Yankelovich 1982). But the deficiency model has important problems, including what some (Gregory and Miller 1998; Trench 1998) claim is its top-down, science-centered approach. And there may be logical problems with asserting that a body of knowledge exists ready to be communicated to the uninformed, since science is not “a well-bounded, coherent entity, capable of being more or less ‘understood’” (Ziman 1992). Scientists themselves have no clear and consistent notion of what “science” covers and often disagree about what it is telling us about the world. ♦ A second perspective is the rational choice model. It asks, “What do people need to know in order to be good citizens – even to survive – in a culture largely shaped by science?” Without sufficient knowledge, people might not live their lives optimally or they might even turn against science. But dilemmas plague this approach too. For example, given conflicts among scientists over findings and theory, whose advice should be followed? What advice is necessary? Where should such advice be located? ♦ Finally, the third perspective is the context model, which asks: “What do people want to know given the circumstances of their lives?” This model requires understanding the context of scientific knowledge and how different people put it to use. Lewenstein (1992), Logan (1999) and Ziman (1992) have argued that science communication scholarship could benefit from adopting this third perspective. Yankelovich (1982), a proponent of the traditional view, argues that the general public must be a target of science communication. But others, including Prewitt (1982) and Miller (1986), believe that science messages are often wasted when disseminated to the general public. Considerable debate has emerged about what the public should understand about science – and why. Should the public know about recent developments in science? Should it exhibit science literacy (i.e., basic understanding of accepted scientific facts and theories)? Should the public understand the methods of science? Should it possess insight into the implications of scientific findings? Is it important that the public understand any, some, or all of these things? Targeting Segments of the Public for Science Communication Prewitt (1982) and Miller (1986) suggest segmenting the public by their position in a science hierarchy and differentially targeting science communication to those segments. They place decision makers in government and policy with specialized science information needs at the top of this hierarchy because they are increasingly called upon to make comparative judgments about science and technology matters; thus, their science literacy is important for ensuring that wise science policies are developed and implemented. The attentive public is next most important, requiring an understanding of the process of scientific study and “functional understanding of the major constructs used in scientific discourse [for example, molecule, gene, cell]” (Miller 1986:61). Miller (1986) estimates that about 20 percent of American adults can be considered attentive to science policy. This group tends to be younger, male, better educated, and more likely to have taken a college-level science course when compared to the broader population. Almost 80 percent of the attentive public watch news shows regularly, and roughly the same proportion of the interested public watches the news. About 75 percent of the attentive public Ch 17 Communicating Science 06.10.02.doc 6 06.10.02 regularly read the paper, but they are dissatisfied with the science coverage they find there; just 9 percent rate the paper as a good source of science news. About half of the attentive public are regular readers of one or more science magazines, including National Geographic and Psychology Today, but fewer than 10 percent are readers of general science magazines such as Science, Omni, Discover, or Scientific American (Miller 1986). The information needs of the interested public are more difficult to address. Miller (1986) speculates that any approach to communicating with this group should be non-technical, simple, and pictorial. He estimates that about 20 percent of the public can be characterized as “science- interested.” These individuals have a relatively high interest in science and technology, but lack functional understanding of the process or terminology of science. Compared to the science- attentive public, the science-interested public is slightly older, somewhat less educated, and less likely to have taken a college-level science course (Miller 1986). There is little consensus about the information needs or wants of the non-attentive public, which comprise about 60 percent of the public, according to Miller’s estimates. These individuals largely ignore information about science. In line with Miller’s findings, Pallen (1994) reports that 56 percent of Americans are regular viewers of television programs on science, technology, or nature and that 38 percent read science news in a newspaper weekly. Not surprisingly, these differences in interest and attention are mirrored in differences in scientific knowledge. Scholars focusing on the content of public understanding of science facts and concepts have found that most people recognize that the center of the earth is hot (86%) and that sunlight can cause cancer (94%), but smaller majorities realize that the continents are moving (72%) and that oxygen comes from plants (60%). Only 30 percent of respondents in one survey correctly reported that the earth travels around the sun. The unfortunate reality: two-thirds of the attentive public cannot pass a “relatively minimal test of scientific literacy” (Miller 1983, cited in Miller 1986:66). However, science knowledge is not unique in this regard; Americans appear pretty ignorant in other areas as well. Popular books assure us that Americans don't know much about history (Davis 1993b), geography (Davis 1993a), mathematics (Paulos 1988), or almost any specialty area. The Effect of Science Communication on Public Knowledge and Attitudes Research on the agenda-setting process posits that the prominence of issues in news media can affect the salience given to the issue among audiences (McCombs and Shaw 1972 1993). Pilisuk and Acredolo (1988) surveyed three communities and concluded that regular use of broadcast media is unrelated to concern about technological risk. Conversely, Albert (1986) suggests that magazine coverage of the AIDS disease in the early 1980s contributed to a climate of blame for those afflicted with the disease. Baker (1986) contends that early news coverage of AIDS at an elite newspaper influenced perceptions of the disease as a legitimate social issue. Mazur and Conant (1978) found that people who hear about a proposed nuclear waste site are more opposed to it than people who have not heard about it. Mazur (1981a, 1981b) concludes that media coverage of a scientific controversy increases public opposition to the technology, even when such coverage is not negative. Placing an issue high on a public's issue agenda can carry positive benefits. For example, one study found that early detection of colon cancer increased following the extensive media coverage of Reagan’s colon cancer surgery (Brown and Potosky 1990). And events such as Earth Day can spur coverage of environmental issues, even as Ch 17 Communicating Science 06.10.02.doc 7 06.10.02 the coverage emphasizes some environmental problems at the expense of others (Bowman and Hanaford 1977). There is a great deal of science reporting about risk, and this is one area in which public interest seems high. The reasons for this are obvious. Scientific discoveries can help people to avoid health threats (encouraging people to eat better, exercise more), detect threats (new technologies can help with early diagnosis of disease or illness), or identify threats (link radon to soil, or cell phones and smoking to cancer). There seems to be broad agreement that a distinction can be made between the “objective reality” of risks, as evidenced by statistical estimates from experts, and social perceptions of risk (Bradbury 1989; Golding 1992; Renn 1992). The divergence of the two may be, in part, influenced by the extent and the way in which risk is covered by the press (Burnham 1987, Viscusi 1992). Perceptions of risk are affected not only by statistical probabilities, but also by feelings of dread and by the extent to which the threat is well understood or unknown (Slovic 1992). Papers dealing with risk issues cover a diverse set of phenomena. Prominent are coverage of the Chernobyl incident and other nuclear issues (Burkett 1986; Nimmo and Combs 1985; Norstedt 1991; Peters 1992; Peters et al. 1990; Rossow and Dunwoody 1991; Rothman and Lichter 1987; Stephens and Edison 1982), AIDS and HIV precautions (Singer et al. 1991b; Stroman and Seltzer 1989; Witte 1995), asbestos (Freimuth and Van Nevel (1981), natural disasters like Mount St. Helens (Burkett 1986) and earthquakes (Atwood 1998), the environment (Schoenfeld 1979), technology generally (Pilisuk and Acredolo 1988), water safety (Griffin et al. 1995; Kahlor et al. 1998), and food safety (Juanillo and Scherer 1995), including pesticides, color additives, dioxin leaching into milk from containers, and growth hormones in animals (Juanillo and Scherer 1995). Whereas the literature on science communication often portrays the reader as relatively passive and uninvolved, audiences for information about risk are often portrayed as active (Grunig 1974). For example, in 1989 there were 250 organized boycotts of food products, up from 100 to 150 in typical year (Juanillo and Scherer 1995). Policies about nuclear energy, food irradiation, tobacco legislation, waste disposal, needle exchanges, disease prevention, and many other concerns, are often more affected by the perception of risk than by the quantified predictions of experts. Since society must tolerate a degree of risk, “classical risk communication essentially translates as advocacy for determining which risks are acceptable” (Juanillo and Scherer 1995:278). When risks are identified or labeled as concerns, stakeholders, who include “experts, policy makers, interest groups, and the general public” (Juanillo and Scherer 1995:279) become involved in debates about policies that are designed to increase safety. Media, though not explicitly mentioned in the list, deserve a place as well, because information from media influences many risk perceptions (Slovic 1992; Viscusi 1992). Interactions Between Scientists and Journalists: Differences Can Lead to Conflict The science communication literature offers many perspectives on ways in which the interests, goals, values, and routines of scientists and science journalists clash. These differing values may, in part, be responsible for misunderstandings and disagreements that can hinder relationships between journalists and scientists. Journalists’ norms and those of scientists frequently appear to be contradictory. An important value of science is objectivity, not so much in the choice of questions or theories, but in requiring tests that permit theoretically incompatible outcomes. For scientists, hypotheses must be Ch 17 Communicating Science 06.10.02.doc 10 06.10.02 Future Directions in Science Communication Research Science communicators have mapped out an ambitious agenda. Science communication research has long been concerned with what people do with the knowledge they gain from media. This strong record of achievement is most clear in the area of risk communication, where investigations try to discover how people react to information about technological threats. More research might be devoted to how people use other kinds of science knowledge. For example, how do people use information about astronomy, earth science, physics, and chemistry, and other topics that do not necessarily or directly involve risk? And how should science activities with no immediate payoff be framed and covered? Even learning about how communication affects the recipients of information, as defined above, is too restrictive for representing science communication scholarship. A broad set of attitudinal questions is also raised in the literature. These questions concern how people form attitudes towards science, scientists, technology and specific technologies, funding of science, science education, and science policy. Attitudinal and opinion issues such as these find their intellectual roots in persuasion theory, in theories of public opinion, and in political science. Especially important and useful would be efforts to link specific science and technology attitudes to the types of knowledge that people have about science. A prevalent assumption in the literature is that high levels of knowledge correspond to favorable attitudes towards science (Schibeci 1990). But there are few data on this critical issue (Althoff et al. 1973). It may be just as logical to assume that moderately high levels of knowledge are associated with anti-science attitudes. It does not seem unreasonable to hypothesize that radical environmentalists, anti-nuclear activists, opponents of cloning and genetic research, animal rights protesters and others who express narrow or broad opposition to scientific research efforts, might actually possess greater levels of understanding of science and the scientific method than do members of the non-attentive public. This is not to say that these groups possess high levels of understanding, merely that they have at least some understanding, if for no other reason than because they are frequently forced to defend their beliefs. This prediction suggests there may be a curvilinear (U-shaped) relation between science knowledge and science attitudes. If science communication is concerned with the kinds of knowledge that foster greater appreciation of science, it also must also be concerned with the kinds of knowledge that foster anti-science sentiments. Attitudinally related questions also need to be more specifically framed. One's general attitude toward science (i.e., "science is good") may be very different from attitudes toward specific issues (cloning, space exploration), scientists ("odd characters," "role models"), general science support ("we are spending enough on science now"), and priorities ("we need to spend less on AIDS research and more on cancer," or "we should fund a greater number of modest physics experiments and fewer big experiments," or "too much money is spent on medical research and not enough on chemical research"). Understanding people's beliefs and attitudes about science would give us a much better understanding of science publics. Attention should be given to the implicit notion described by Ziman’s deficiency model, namely that knowledge attitude funding. A failure to find such predicted links would confirm that issues of science literacy and support are quite different, and should be treated as distinct problems. Ch 17 Communicating Science 06.10.02.doc 11 06.10.02 The Application of Science Communication to Public Science Management Science communication research has added to available knowledge not only about how science information is communicated but also about mass communication processes more generally. It has examined many sociological and public-policy questions. These include the sociology of news, factors affecting the behavior of reporters, sources, news organizations, scientists, and news publics. Increasingly, scholarship in this area is examining the impact that non-scientists have on science-related questions. This is an extremely important area of research, because it is centrally related to science policy and public support for and utilization of scientific research and knowledge creation. Managers of science organizations have an interest in playing an effective role in the policy-setting process. They are called upon to respond to Congressional directives and inquiries about performance, impact, and needs and to convey the activities, challenges, and achievements of their research to their key audiences. Their chances of doing this are enhanced if they understand how science policy is made; what issues policy makers and regulators contend with in decisions to support or restrict science and specific research activities; how decision makers obtain their science news; what role the public plays in science policy and how activists use science communication in agenda setting. Although managers need to understand how to communicate effectively in face-to-face presentations, as spokespersons and strategists for their organizations, they also need to be smart about the media and journalists. How do journalists balance their needs for close working relationships with scientists with their needs for autonomy? Do journalistic norms for the coverage of government and policy makers hinder or enhance the quality of coverage of scientists? What is the effect of a reporter's own science literacy on his or her coverage of science, selection of stories, choice of sources, and quality of reporting? The research on science communication can also help science managers be more effective in dealing with the myriad of external partnerships and collaborations that are part and parcel of contemporary science management: building and maintaining cross-organizational, and frequently international, teams, joint research projects, and shared facilities. Successful communication about the goals, process, and results of science in these complex organizational arrangements requires attention to cultural and organizational differences and to the need to integrate the external communication of science with effective organizational communication practices. References Albert, E. 1986. Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome: The Victim and the Press. In Studies in Communications Vol. 3. T. McCormack (ed). Pp. 135-158. Greenwich, CT: JAI. Altheide, D.L. 1976. Creating Reality: How TV News Distorts Events. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Althoff, P., W.H. Grieg, and F. Stuckey. 1973. Environmental Pollution Control Attitudes of Media Managers in Kansas. Journalism Quarterly 50: 666-672. Atwood, L.E. 1998. Risk Perception and Information Management Responses to a Predicted Earthquake. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association for Journalism and Mass Communication, Baltimore, MD. August Bader, R.G. 1990. How Science News Sections Influence Newspaper Science Coverage: A Case Study. Journalism Quarterly 67:88-96. Ch 17 Communicating Science 06.10.02.doc 12 06.10.02 Baker, A.J. 1986. The Portrayal of AIDS in the Media: An Analysis of Articles in the New York Times. In The Social Dimension of AIDS: Method and Theory. D. A. Feldman and T. M. Johnson (eds). New York: Praeger. Boorstin, D.J. 1983. The Discoverers: A History of Man's Search to Know His World and Himself. New York: Random House. Breed, W. 1980. The Newspaperman, News, and Society. New York: Arno Press. Bowman, J.S. and K. Hanaford. 1977. Mass Media and the Environment since Earth Day. Journalism Quarterly 54:160-165. Bradbury, J. 1989. The Policy Implications of Differing Concepts of Risk. Science, Technology, & Human Values 14:380-399. Brown, M.L., and A.L. Potosky. 1990. The Presidential Effect: The Public Health Response to Media Coverage about Ronald Reagan’s Colon Cancer Episode. Public Opinion Quarterly 50:317-329. Burkett, W. 1986. News Reporting: Science, Medicine, and High Technology. Ames, IA: Iowa State University Press. Burnham, J. 1987. How Superstition Won and Science Lost: Popularizing Science and Health in the United States. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. Crisp, D.W. 1986. Scientists and the Local Press. In Scientists and Journalists: Reporting Science as News. S.M. Friedman, S. Dunwoody, and C. L. Rogers (eds). New York: Free Press. Cronholm, Margareta, and Rolf Sandell. 1981. Scientific Information: A Review of Research. Journal of Communication 31:85-96. David, P. 1996. Role of Imagery in Recall of Deviant News. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly 73:804-819. Davis, K.G. 1993a. Don't Know Much About Geography. New York: Avon. Davis, K.G. 1993b. Don't Know Much About History. New York: Avon. Dearing, J.W. 1995. Newspaper Coverage of Maverick Science: Creating Controversy through Balancing. Public Understanding of Science, Vol 4. DiBella, S.M., A.J. Ferri, and A.B. Padderud. 1991. Scientists' Reasons for Consenting to Mass Media Interviews: A National Survey. Journalism and Mass Communications Quarterly 68:740-49. Dornan, C. 1990. Some Problems in Conceptualizing the Issue of “Science and the Media.” Critical Studies in Mass Communication 7:48-71. Dornan, C. 1988. The “Problem” of Science and Media: AFew Seminal Texts in their Context, 1956-1965. Journal of Communication Inquiry 12:53-70. Dunwoody, S. 1986. The Scientist as Source. In Scientists and Journalists: Reporting Science as News. S.M. Friedman, S. Dunwoody, and C. L. Rogers (eds). New York: Free Press. Dunwoody, S., and M. Ryan. 1983. Public Information Persons as Mediators between Scientists and Journalists. Journalism Quarterly 60:647-656. Durant, J. and G.A. Evans. 1989. Understanding of Science in Britain and the U. S. A. In British Social Attitudes: Special International Report. R. Jowell, S. Witherspoon, and L. Brook (eds). Aldershot: Gower. Ch 17 Communicating Science 06.10.02.doc 15 06.10.02 Peters, H.P. 1992. The Credibility of Information Sources in West Germany after the Chernobyl Disaster. Public Understanding of Science 1:325-343. Peters, H.P., G. Albrecht, L. Hennen, and H.U. Stegelmann. 1990. “Chernobyl” and the Nuclear Power Issue in West German Public Opinion. Journal of Environmental Psychology 10:121- 134. Pinker, S. 1994. The Language Instinct: How the Mind Creates Language. New York: William Morrow. Pilisuk, M., and C. Acredolo. 1988. Fear of Technological Hazards: One or Many? Social Behavior 3:17-24. Prewitt, K. 1982. The Public and Science Policy. Science, Technology & Human Values 36:5- 14. Ramsey, S.A. 1989. The Role of Technological Development in Setting the Stage for Expanded Local Science Coverage. Southwestern Mass Communication Journal 5:33-40. Renn, O. 1992. Concepts of Risk: A Classification. Social Theories of Risk. S. Krimsky and D. Golding (eds). Westport, CT: Praeger. Rossow, M.D., and Dunwoody, S. 1991. Inclusion of “Useful” Detail in Newspaper Coverage of a High-Level Nuclear Waste Siting Controversy. Journalism Quarterly 68:87-100. Rothman, S., and S.R, Lichter. 1987. Elite Ideology and Risk Perception in Nuclear Energy Policy. American Political Science Review 81:383-404. Russell, C. 1986. The View from the National Beat. In Scientists and Journalists: Reporting Science as News. S. M. Friedman, S. Dunwoody, and C. L. Rogers (eds). New York: Free Press. Sagan, C. 1980. Cosmos. New York: Random House. Schibeci, R.A. 1990. Public Knowledge and Perceptions of Science and Technology. Bulletin of Science, Technology, and Society 10:86-92. Schoenfeld, A.C. 1979. The Press and NEPA: The Case of the Missing Agenda. Journalism Quarterly 56:577-585. Shoemaker, P.J., and S.D. Reese. 1991. Mediating the Message: Theories of Influences on Mass Media Content. White Plains, NY: Longman. Shortland, M., and J. Gregory. 1991. Communicating Science: A Handbook. New York: Longman. Singer, E., P. Endreny, and M.B. Glassman,. 1991a. Media Coverage of Disasters: Effects of Geographic Location. Journalism Quarterly 68:48-58. Singer, E., T.F. Rogers, and M.B. Glassman. 1991b. Public Opinion about AIDS Before and After the 1988 U. S. Government Public Information Campaign. Public Opinion Quarterly 55:161-179. Slovic, P. 1992. Perception of Risk: Reflections on the Psychometric Paradigm. In Social Theories of Risk. S. Krimsky and D. Golding (eds). Westport: Praeger. Stephens, M., and N.G. Edison. 1982. News Media Coverage of Issues During the Accident at Three-Mile Island. Journalism Quarterly 59:199-204. Stroman, C.A., and R. Seltzer. 1989. Mass Media Use and Knowledge of AIDS. Journalism Quarterly 66:881-887. Ch 17 Communicating Science 06.10.02.doc 16 06.10.02 Tavris, C. 1986. How to Publicize Science: A Case Study. In Reporting Science: The Case of Aggression. J.H. Goldstein (ed). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Trachtman, L. 1981. The Public Understanding of Science Effort: A Critique. Science, Technology, & Human Values 36:10-15. Trench, B. 1998. Science Reporting in Europe: From Comparison to Critique. Paper presented at the PCST Conference, Berlin. September. Valenti, J. 1999. Commentary: How Well Do Scientists Communicate to Media? Science Communication 21:172-178. Viscusi, K. 1992. Smoking:: Making the Risky Decision. New York: Oxford. Ward, J. 1992. Television. In When Science Meets the Public. B. V. Lewenstein (ed). Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science. Witte, K. 1995. Generating Effective Risk Messages: How Scary Should Your Risk Communication Be? Communication Yearbook 18. B.R. Burleson (ed). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. Wright, R. 1994. The Moral Animal: Why We Are the Way We Are. New York: Vintage. Yankelovich, D. 1982. Changing Public Attitudes to Science and the Quality of Life: Edited excerpts from a seminar. Science, Technology, & Human Values 7:3-29. Ziman, J. 1992. Not Knowing, Needing to Know, and Wanting to Know. In When Science Meets the Public. B.V. Lewenstein. Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science.