How to fulfill the expert role in public dialogue:The Dutch dialogue on human germline genetic modification as a case

Over the last decades science communication theory appears to have evolved at a much faster pace than science communication practice. Scientists seem willing to step into the public domain, but a genuine two-way interaction with the public is only rarely observed. We argue that part of this discrepancy between theory and practice may actually be caused by the lacking of a clear description of the modern expert role; the role a scientist should take in contemporary science communication. In this contribution we use an example of good practice—the Dutch dialogue on human germline genetic modification—to inform theory. We analyse guiding principles for the design and execution of this dialogue and observe expert behavior in three separate dialogue sessions. With the combined findings, we present a detailed description of the modern expert role in terms of three responsibilities, with for each responsibility three prompts for behavior. For the responsibility to share these are to select expert knowledge that is relevant to the goal; to present expert knowledge in a meaningful and accessible language; and to be cautious in sharing personal considerations. For the responsibility to listen and learn these are to consider interactions with members of the public as opportunities to learn; to be patient and supportive; and to assist in stimulating in-depth dialogue. For the responsibility to invest in relationships these are to assist in creating an ambiance of safety and relevance; to preserve trust; and to convey respect for every contribution and every point of view. Each behavioral prompt is further concretized with concomitant actions and practice examples as collected from observing experts in action. The implications for scientists engaging in contemporary science communication, as well as for science communication trainers, are discussed.</p

How to fulfill the expert role in public dialogue: The Dutch dialogue on human germline genetic modification as a case

Over the last decades science communication theory appears to have evolved at a much faster pace than science communication practice. Scientists seem willing to step into the public domain, but a genuine two-way interaction with the public is only rarely observed. We argue that part of this discrepancy between theory and practice may actually be caused by the lacking of a clear description of the modern expert role; the role a scientist should take in contemporary science communication. In this contribution we use an example of good practice—the Dutch dialogue on human germline genetic modification—to inform theory. We analyse guiding principles for the design and execution of this dialogue and observe expert behavior in three separate dialogue sessions. With the combined findings, we present a detailed description of the modern expert role in terms of three responsibilities, with for each responsibility three prompts for behavior. For the responsibility to share these are to select expert knowledge that is relevant to the goal; to present expert knowledge in a meaningful and accessible language; and to be cautious in sharing personal considerations. For the responsibility to listen and learn these are to consider interactions with members of the public as opportunities to learn; to be patient and supportive; and to assist in stimulating in-depth dialogue. For the responsibility to invest in relationships these are to assist in creating an ambiance of safety and relevance; to preserve trust; and to convey respect for every contribution and every point of view. Each behavioral prompt is further concretized with concomitant actions and practice examples as collected from observing experts in action. The implications for scientists engaging in contemporary science communication, as well as for science communication trainers, are discussed

Understanding epistemological notions underlying scientific language use: a multifaceted analysis framework

Helping university students develop productive views of what characterizes good scientific research and scientific knowledge is an important objective of science education. However, many studies show that students’ views of the nature of science (NOS) do not become more informed or even become less informed after learning activities that engage students in scientific practice. This could mean that the way we teach students to conduct scientific research might unintentionally strengthen or bring about uninformed views of NOS. In this article, we argue that scientific discourse (how language is used in science) might play a role in this relation between learning scientific inquiry and uninformed views of NOS. We argue that there could be implicit notions relating to NOS underlying scientific discourse that uninformed readers might translate to uninformed views of NOS. We call these implicit notions underlying scientific language use “epistemological notions.” In this article, we further define this construct of epistemological notions, contrast it with explicit views of NOS and other related constructs, explain how we think epistemological notions might affect explicit views of NOS, and present a framework we developed to characterize them in scientific language use. It is a descriptive and interpretative analysis framework which combines, optimizes, and extends several text analysis methods, discourse analysis, and reflexive thematic analysis. We provide a guide to use the framework and point out quality criteria. We finish by advocating the framework for educational researchers interested in developing instructional interventions during which learning about science is combined with explicit reflection on NOS. Identifying epistemological notions in scientific language use could provide starting points for these activities by making explicit the translation from NOS understanding to scientific practice and vice versa

Information Provision Regarding Health-Related Direct-to-Consumer Genetic Testing for Dutch Consumers: An in-Depth Content Analysis of Sellers’ Websites

Background: Previous studies have suggested that information offered by sellers of health-related direct-to-consumer genetic tests (DTC-GTs) is often incomplete, unbalanced, or too difficult to understand. The extent to which this is the case for sellers accessible to Dutch consumers has not previously been studied. Methods and Goals: The present study aimed to assess the completeness, balance, readability, and findability of informational content on a selection of websites from several health-related DTC-GT sellers accessible to Dutch consumers. An in-depth content analysis was performed based on a recently published checklist outlining key items for policy guidance regarding DTC-GT services. Results: The information provided by sellers did not equally cover all aspects relevant to health-related DTC-GT service provision. The provided information was slightly unbalanced, with benefits of health-related DTC-GT usage being overemphasized compared to its risks and limitations. The readability of the provided information was low, on average requiring college education for proper understanding. A findability analysis showed that information concerning all themes is overall relatively evenly distributed across analyzed sellers’ websites. Conclusions: Information provision by assessed health-related DTC-GT sellers is suboptimal regarding completeness, balance, and readability. To better empower potential consumers to make an informed decision regarding health-related DTC-GT usage, we advocate industry-wide enhancement of information provision

Learning (how) to listen:a key aspect in training future scientists for meaningful dialogue with society

The current paper presents the findings of an educational design study conducted within the realm of science communication training. Within this study framework, we implemented the active listening observation scale (ALOS) in a science communication training based on (deliberate) experiential learning. Our investigation centered on determining the efficacy and mechanisms through which the ALOS facilitated the acquisition of active listening skills. This was achieved through semi-structured interviews conducted with participants who, as part of our training regimen, participated in numerous dialogue sessions with a non-scientific audience. Through reflexive thematic analysis, it was observed that the ALOS facilitated learning in three distinct manners. First, the ALOS enhanced active listening cognition, by aiding participants in identifying active listening as a spectrum of behaviors serving various functions. Second, the ALOS enhanced the enactment of active listening behaviors by reinforcing the deliberate character of the experiential learning process. Lastly, the ALOS enhanced active listening affect, by assisting participants in recognizing active listening as key in fostering meaningful dialogue. We contemplate our findings within the context of the imperative to advance training initiatives explicitly tailored to fostering meaningful dialogue with society. Moreover, we underscore the necessity to refine science communication training from a pedagogical perspective.</p

Educating for Responsible Research Practice in Biomedical Sciences: Towards Learning Goals

New developments in the field of biomedicine can have extensive implications for society. To steer research efforts in a responsible direction, biomedical scientists should contribute to a forward-looking ethical, and societal evaluation of new developments. However, the question remains how to equip students sufficiently with the skills they need to contribute to this evaluation. In this paper, we examine how the four dimensions of Responsible Research and Innovation (anticipation, reflexivity, inclusivity, and responsiveness) inform the identification of learning goals and teaching approaches that contribute to developing these skills in biomedical scientists. We suggest that these educational approaches focus on the skills to anticipate intended and unintended outcomes, reflect on the epistemological and moral aspects of research practice, and be inclusive of the variety of voices in society. We argue that if these dimensions are properly integrated into biomedical curricula, they will help students develop the attitudinal aspects necessary for becoming responsive, and prepare them for implementing the dimensions of responsible research into their daily practice. This paper focuses specifically on skills biomedical scientists need for the responsible conduct of research. Therefore, our analysis results, at least in part, in domain-specific recommendations. We invite educators from other disciplines to do the same exercise, as we believe this could lead to tailored educational approaches by which students from various disciplinary backgrounds learn how they each have a role in contributing to socially robust and morally responsible research practice

Understanding Epistemological Tenets Underlying Scientific Language Use: A Multifaceted Analysis Framework

Helping university students develop productive views of what characterizes good scientific research and scientific knowledge is an important objective of science education. However, many studies show that students’ views of the nature of science (NOS) do not become more informed or even become less informed after learning activities that engage students in scientific practice. This could mean that the way we teach students to conduct scientific research might unintentionally strengthen or bring about uninformed views of NOS. In this article, we argue that scientific discourse (how language is used in science) might play a role in this relation between learning scientific inquiry and uninformed views of NOS. We argue that there could be implicit notions relating to NOS underlying scientific discourse that uninformed readers might translate to uninformed views of NOS. We call these implicit notions underlying scientific language use “epistemological tenets.” In this article, we further define this construct of epistemological tenets, contrast it with explicit views of NOS and other related constructs, explain how we think epistemological tenets might affect explicit views of NOS, and present a framework we developed to characterize them in scientific language use. It is a descriptive and interpretative analysis framework which combines, optimizes, and extends several text analysis methods, discourse analysis, and reflexive thematic analysis. We provide a guide to use the framework and discuss quality criteria. We finish by advocating the framework for educational researchers interested in developing instructional interventions during which learning about science is combined with explicit reflection on NOS. Identifying epistemological tenets in scientific language use could provide starting points for these activities by making explicit the translation from NOS understanding to scientific practice and vice versa