As differentiation within scientific disciplines increases, so does differentiation between the sciences and other ways of knowing. This distancing between ‘scientific’ and ‘non-scientific’ cultures reflects differences in what are considered valid and reliable approaches to acquiring knowledge and has played a major role in recent science-oriented controversies. Scientists’ reluctance to actively engage in science communication, coupled with journalists’ reliance on the norms of balance, conflict, and human interest in covering scientific issues, have combined to exacerbate public mistrust of science on issues like the measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine. The failure of effective communications between scientists and non-scientists has hindered the progress of both effective science and effective policy. In order to better bridge the gap between the ‘scientific’ and ‘non-scientific’ cultures, renewed efforts must be made to encourage substantive public engagement, with the ultimate goal of facilitating an open, democratic policy-making process.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Price includes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
At the conclusion of a three-year public inquiry led by the UK General Medical Council, Wakefield and two of his colleagues were found to have engaged in ‘dishonest,’ ‘irresponsible,’ and, ultimately, unethical conduct in carrying out the research reported in their 1998 study (General Medical Council 2010). As a result of the hearing, Wakefield and another colleague were ‘struck’ from the medical register and are barred from practicing medicine in the United Kingdom. In February, 2010, The Lancet formally retracted Wakefield et al.’s paper.
Ashot of reality. (2010). On the media. New York: WNYC. Podcast retrieved from http://www.onthemedia.org/transcripts/2010/02/05/01.
Bauer, M. W., Allum, N., & Miller, S. (2007). What can we learn from 25 years of PUS survey research? Liberating and expanding the agenda. Public Understanding of Science, 16, 79–95.
Benjamin, D. (2007). Episodic vs. thematic stories: A frameworks institute FrameByte. Washington: FrameWorks Institute. Retrieved from http://www.frameworksinstitute.org/assets/files/framebytes/framebyte_thematic.pdf.
Blumer, H. (1969). Symbolic interactionism: Perspective and method. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Bubela, T., Nisbet, M. C., Borchelt, R., Brunger, F., Crtichley, C., Einsiedel, E., et al. (2009). Science communication reconsidered. Nature Biotechnology, 27, 514–518.
Burns, T. W., O’Connor, D. J., & Stocklmayer, S. M. (2003). Science communication: A contemporary definition. Public Understanding of Science, 12, 183–202.
Cobern, W. W. (1996). Public understanding of science as seen by the scientific community: Do we need to re-conceptualize and re-examine our own assumptions? Paper presented at the seminar for science, technology and citizenship. Leangkollen, Norway. Retrieved from ERIC database. (ED403132)
Cuppen, E., Hisschemoller, M., & Midden, C. (2009). Bias in the exchange of arguments: The case of scientsits’ evaluation of lay viewpoints on GM food. Public Understanding of Science, 18, 591–606.
Dearing, J. W. (1995). Newspaper coverage of maverick science: Creating controversies through balancing. Public Understanding of Science, 4, 341–361.
Dunwoody, S. (2007). Journalistic practice and coverage of the behavioral and social sciences. In M. K. Welch-Ross & L. G. Fasig (Eds.), Handbook on communicating and disseminating behavioral science. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Entman, R. M. (1993). Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. The Journal of Communication, 43, 51–58.
Freed, G. L., Clark, S. J., Butchart, A. T., Singer, D. C., & Davis, M. M. (2010). Parental vaccine safety concerns in 2009. Pediatrics, 125, 654–659.
Gascoigne, T., & Metcalfe, J. (1997). Incentives and impediments to scientists communicating through the media. Science Communication, 18, 265–282.
General Medical Council. (2010). Fitness to practice panel hearing 28 January 2010. Retrieved from http://www.gmc-uk.org/static/documents/content/Wakefield__Smith_Murch.pdf
Going public. (2004). Nature, 431, 883.
Health Protection Agency. (2008). Confirmed measles cases in England and Wales—an update to end-May 2008. Health Protection Report, 2(25). Retrieved from http://www.hpa.org.uk/hpr/archives/2008/news2508.htm#meas0805
Hilgartner, S. (1990). The dominant view of popularization: Conceptual problems, political uses. Social Studies of Science, 20, 519–539.
Iyengar, S. (1991). Is anyone responsible? How television frames political issues. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Jefferson, T. (2000). Real or perceived adverse effects of vaccines and the media—a tale of our times. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 54, 402–403.
Knorr-Cetina, K. D. (1981). The manufacture of knowledge: An essay on the constructivist and contextual nature of science. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Kurath, M., & Gisler, P. (2009). Informing, involving or engaging? Science communication, in the ages of atom-, bio-, and nanotechnology. Public Understanding of Science, 18, 559–573.
Leask, J. A., Chapman, S., & Hawe, P. (2000). The facts are not enough. British Medical Journal, 321, 108.
Mason, B. W., & Donnelly, P. D. (2000). Impact of a local newspaper campaign on the uptake of the measles mumps and rubella vaccine. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 54, 473–474.
McBrien, J., Murphy, J., Gill, D., Cronin, M., O’Donovan, C., & Cafferkey, M. T. (2003). Measles outbreak in Dublin, 2000. The Pediatric Infectious Disease Journal, 22, 580–584.
McCall, R. B., & Groark, C. J. (2007). A perspective on the history and future of disseminating behavioral and social science. In M. K. Welch-Ross & L. G. Fasig (Eds.), Handbook on communicating and disseminating behavioral science. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Miller, J. D., & Pardo, R. (2000). Civic scientific literacy and attitude to science and technology: A comparative analysis of the European Union, the United States, Japan, and Canada. In M. Dierkes & C. von Grote (Eds.), Between understanding and trust: The public, science and technology. London: Routledge.
Miller, S. (2001). Public understanding of science at the crossroads. Public Understanding of Science, 10, 115–120.
National Science Board. (2008). Science and engineering indicators 2008, volume 1 (NSB 08- 01). Arlington: National Science Foundation. Retrieved from http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind08/pdf/volume1.pdf.
Nisbet, M. C. (2009). Framing science: A new paradigm in public engagement. In L. Kahlor & P. Stout (Eds.), Communicating science: New agendas in communication. New York: Taylor & Francis.
Nisbet, M. C., & Goidel, R. K. (2007). Understanding citizen perceptions of science controversy. Public Understanding of Science, 16, 421–440.
Nisbet, M. C., & Huge, M. (2007). Where do science debates come from? Understanding attention cycles and framing. In D. Brossard, J. Shanahan, C. Nesbitt (Eds.), The public, the media, and agricultural biotechnology. CABI
Nisbet, M. C., & Mooney, C. (2007). Framing science. Science, 316, 56.
Nisbet, M. C., & Scheufele, D. A. (2009). What’s next for science communication? Promising directions and lingering distractions. American Journal of Botany, 96, 1–12.
Nisbet, M. C., Scheufele, D. A., Shanahan, J., Moy, P., Brossard, D., & Lewenstein, B. V. (2002). Knowledge reservations, or promise? A media effects model for public perceptions of science and technology. Communication Research, 29, 584–608.
O’Dell, L., & Brownlow, C. (2005). Media reports of links between MMR and autism: A discourse analysis. British Journal of Learning Disabilities, 33, 194–199.
Office of Science and Technology and the Wellcome Trust. (2001). Science and the public: A review of science communication and public attitudes toward science in Britain. Public Understanding of Science, 10, 315–330.
Offit, P. A., & Coffin, S. E. (2003). Communicating science to the public: MMR vaccine and autism. Vaccine, 22, 1–6.
Palfreman, J. (2010). The vaccine war. [Television series episode]. In J. Palfreman (Ed.), Frontline. Boston: WGBH/Boston.
Pardo, R., & Calvo, F. (2004). The cognitive dimension of public perceptions of science: Methodological issues. Public Understanding of Science, 13, 203–227.
Parsons, W. (2001). Scientists and politicians: The need to communicate. Public Understanding of Science, 10, 303–314.
Peirce, C. S. (1957). The fixation of belief. In V. Tomas (Ed.), Essays in the philosophy of science. New York: Liberal Arts Press.
Potter, W. J. (2009). Conceptualizing the audience. In R. L. Nabi & M. B. Oliver (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of media processes and effects. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.
Ramsay, M. E., Yarwood, J., Lewis, D., Campbell, H., & White, J. M. (2002). Parental confidence in measles mumps and rubella vaccine: Evidence from vaccine coverage to attitudinal surveys. The British Journal of General Practice, 52, 912–916.
Serpell, L., & Green, J. (2006). Parental decision-making in childhood vaccination. Vaccine, 24, 4041–4046.
Shonkoff, J. P. (2000). Science, policy, and practice: Three cultures in search of a shared mission. Child Development, 71, 181–187.
Snow, C. P. (1993). The two cultures (with introduction by Stefan Collini). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Speers, T., & Lewis, J. (2004). Journalists and jabs: Media coverage of the MMR vaccine. Communication & Medicine, 1, 171–181.
Strauss, C., & Quinn, N. (1997). A cognitive theory of cultural meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sturgis, P., & Allum, N. (2004). Science in society: Re-evaluating the deficit model of public attitudes. Public Understanding of Science, 13, 55–74.
Tait, J. (2009). Upstream engagement and the governance of science. EMBO Reports, 10, S18–S22.
Turney, J. (1996). Public understanding of science. Lancet, 347, 1087–1090.
Vaccines and autism: A story of medicine, science and fear. (2011). The Diane Rehm Show. Podcast retrieved from http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2011-02-02/vaccines-and-autism-story-medicine-science-and-fear?page=2
Wagner, W. (2007). Vernacular science knowledge: Its role in everyday life communication. Public Understanding of Science, 16, 7–22.
Wakefield, A. J., Murch, S. H., Anthony, A., Linnell, J., Casson, D. M., Malik, M., et al. (1998). Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, non-specific colitis, and pervasive developmental disorder in children. Lancet, 351, 637–641.
Weigold, M. (2001). Communicating science: A review of the literature. Science Communication, 23, 164–193.
Weigold, M., Triese, D., & Rausch, P. (2007). Science communication scholarship: Themes and future direction. In M. K. Welch-Ross & L. G. Fasig (Eds.), Handbook on communicating and disseminating behavioral science. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Welch-Ross, M. K., & Fasig, L. G. (2007). Introduction. In M. K. Welch-Ross & L. G. Fasig (Eds.), Handbook on communicating and disseminating behavioral science. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Wilsdon, J., & Willis, R. (2005). See-through science: Why public engagement needs to move upstream. Retrieved from http://changethis.com/manifesto/12.SeeThroughScience/pdf/12.SeeThroughScience.pdf
Yearley, S. (2000). Making systematic sense of public discontents with expert knowledge: Two analytical approaches and a case study. Public Understanding of Science, 9, 105–122.
Yurevich, A. V. (2009). Cognitive frames in psychology: Demarcations and ruptures. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 43, 89–103.
Zehr, S. C. (2000). Public representations of scientific uncertainty about global climate change. Public Understanding of Science, 9, 84–103.
Zittoun, T., Gillespie, & Cornish, F. (2009). Fragmentation or differentiation: Questioning the crisis in psychology. Integative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 43, 104–115.
About this article
Cite this article
Mikulak, A. Mismatches between ‘Scientific’ and ‘Non-Scientific’ Ways of Knowing and Their Contributions to Public Understanding of Science. Integr. psych. behav. 45, 201–215 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12124-011-9157-8
- Science communication
- Public understanding of science (PUS)
- Public engagement