For laypeople, media coverage of science on television is a gateway to scientific issues. Defining scientific evidence is central to the field of science, but there are still questions if news coverage of science represents scientific research findings as certain or uncertain. The framing approach is a suitable framework to classify different media representations; it is applied here to investigate the frames of scientific evidence in film clips (n=207) taken from science television programs. Molecular medicine is the domain of interest for this analysis, due to its high proportion of uncertain and conflicting research findings and risks. The results indicate that television clips vary in their coverage of scientific evidence of molecular medicine. Four frames were found: Scientific Uncertainty and Controversy, Scientifically Certain Data, Everyday Medical Risks, and Conflicting Scientific Evidence. They differ in their way of framing scientific evidence and risks of molecular medicine.

In Germany, the Internet is gaining increasing importance for laypeople as a source of health information, including information about vaccination. While previous research has focused on the characteristics of online information about vaccination, this study investigated the influence of relevant user-specific cognitive factors on users' search behavior for online information about vaccination. Additionally, it examined how searching online for information about vaccination influences users' attitudes toward vaccination. We conducted an experimental study with 56 undergraduate students from a German university that consisted of a survey and eye-tracking while browsing the Internet, followed by a content analysis of the eye-tracking data. The results show that the users exposed themselves to balanced and diverse online information about vaccination. However, none of the examined cognitive factors (attitude toward vaccination, attitude salience, prior knowledge about vaccination, need for cognition, and cognitive involvement) influenced the amount of time users spent searching the Internet for information about vaccination. Our study was not able to document any effects of attitude-consistent selective exposure to online information about vaccination. In addition, we found no effect on attitude change after having searched the Internet for vaccine-related information. Thus, users' search behavior regarding vaccination seems to be relatively stable.

From the 1960s onwards, communication scientists have analyzed science communication. This article provides an overview of the empirical evidence that this research has generated. First, it describes the structures of the research field based on available meta-analyses. Then, it describes what is known about the communicators of science (such as scientists, journalists, PR experts, NGOs, and others) and about the portrayals of science in news media as well as online and in social media, and examines what is known about the uses and effects of science communication. For each of these subfields, the questions in focus, typical theoretical approaches, main results, and gaps are identified and reflected upon. In addition, the article identifies research gaps and potential avenues for future research.

The mental models that individual scholars have of science communication – how it works, what it is supposed to achieve and so on – shape the way these academics actually communicate to the public. But these mental models, and their prevalence among scholars, have rarely been analysed. Drawing on a large-scale, representative web survey of academics at universities in Germany, Austria and Switzerland ( n = 15,778) from 2020, we identify three mental models that are prevalent among scholars, and that correspond to conceptual models found in science communication theory: ‘Public Understanding of Science’, ‘Public Engagement with Science’ and ‘Strategic Science Communication’. The results suggest that the ‘Strategic Science Communication’ model is particularly prevalent among academics in precarious employment and female scholars. Extrinsically motivated academics, that is, those under pressure to win grants, also seem to use science communication more strategically. The ‘Public Engagement’ model is prevalent among older and female scholars, while ‘Public Understanding’ is particularly prevalent among scholars who find their work especially meaningful. Findings also reveal that academics’ mental models largely align with the way they practice science communication.

Biotechnology might contribute to solving food safety and security challenges. However, gene technology has been under public scrutiny, linked to the framing of the media and public discourse. The study aims to investigate people’s perceptions and acceptance of food biotechnology with focus on transgenic genetic modification versus genome editing. An online experiment was conducted with participants from the United Kingdom (n = 490) and Switzerland (n = 505). The participants were presented with the topic of food biotechnology and more specifically with experimentally varied vignettes on transgenic and genetic modification and genome editing (scientific uncertainty: high vs. low, media format: journalistic vs. user-generated blog). The results suggest that participants from both countries express higher levels of acceptance for genome editing compared to transgenic genetic modification. The general and personal acceptance of these technologies depend largely on whether the participants believe the application is beneficial, how they perceive scientific uncertainty, and the country they reside in. Our findings suggest that future communication about gene technology should focus more on discussing trade-offs between using an agricultural technologies and tangible and relevant benefits, instead of a unidimensional focus on risk and safety.