This course explores the structure, meanings, and implications of "public communication of science and technology" (PCST). We will do so primarily by reading scholarly research about the field, rather than experiencing it ourselves. We will examine the contexts in which communication about science occurs. We will look at the motivations of and constraints on people involved in producing information about science for nonprofessional audiences. We will analyze the functions of public communication of science and technology. We will also try to link knowledge about PCST to research in communication more broadly, in order to develop new knowledge about science communication.

This will be a seminar course. That means that everyone does the reading and everyone comes to class prepared to explore the readings. To "explore the readings" means you've read the texts, you've thought about them, and you're ready to see where the arguments lead. It also means you've identified inconsistencies or problems with the logic and are ready to tear the text apart. You will usually find material that is intellectually challenging: it may require multiple readings to make sense, or it may challenge beliefs you already have (even though you may not have known that you have them). You will be expected to justify your reactions to the texts with specific references to the texts or, when relevant, to other texts.

For each class session, one of you will lead the discussion. You will come to class with a specific set of questions raised by the readings. Those questions may emerge from the content of the reading, or they may question the logic or approach taken by the author(s). It will be helpful for discussion leaders to bring the questions on a handout for everyone. Even better would be to circulate the questions a couple of days before class, via the class bulletin board (on the Blackboard system).

Readings

Required texts (order from Amazon):

· Gregory, Jane, and Miller, Steve. (1998). Science in Public: Communication, Culture, and Credibility. New York: Plenum.

· Chittenden, D., Farmelo, G., & Lewenstein, B. V. (Eds.). (2004). Creating Connections: Museums and the Public Understanding of Current Research. Walnut Creek, CA: Altamira Press.

Additional readings will be available in a password-protected section of the class website or via handouts.

You should also consider browsing some of the key journals in the field, looking for relevant articles. The most relevant journals are Public Understanding of Science and Science Communication. If your interests tend more towards communication issues, look at Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, Journal of Communication, Health Communication, and Critical Studies in Mass Communication. If your interests run more towards science studies or science policy issues, consider Social Studies of Science and Science, Technology & Human Values.

Grades

Grades will be based on class participation (30%, including written comments on the readings and contributions to class discussions) and on the final paper (70%).

Academic integrity

As you know, you are responsible for following Cornell’s Code of Academic Integrity. You should review the Code at http://cuinfo.cornell.edu/Academic/AIC.html. In particular, any work that you hand in should be your own. If you have any questions about how to interpret the Code in the context of assignments or activities in this class (especially any that involve collaboration with your colleagues), please feel free to contact me or the University Ombudsman.

Tentative course schedule

Week	Date
1	29 Aug	Introduction: Public communication of science & technology
2	5 Sept	PCST, continued Lewenstein, B. V. (1994). A Survey of Public Communication of Science and Technology Activities in the United States. In B. Schiele (Ed.), When Science Becomes Culture (pp. 119-178). Boucherville, Quebec: University of Ottawa Press. Lewenstein, B. V. (1995). From Fax to Facts: Communication in the Cold Fusion Saga. Social Studies of Science, 25(3), 403-436.
3	12 Sep	PCST, continued Gregory, J., & Miller, S. (1998). Science in Public: Communication, Culture, and Credibility. New York: Plenum.
4	<19 Sep>	NOTE: This class will be rescheduled to later in the week Science literacy The "deficit model" National Science Board. (2002). Science and Technology: Public Attitudes and Public Understanding, Science & Engineering Indicators--2002 (pp. Chapter 7). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. · Miller, J. D. (1998). The measurement of civic scientific literacy. Public Understanding of Science, 7(3), 203-223. · Miller, J. D., & Kimmel, L. G. (2001). Biomedical Communications: Purposes, Audiences, Strategies. New York: Academic Press. (intro and conclusion) Critiques and alternatives · Wynne, B. (1995). Public Understanding of Science. In S. Jasanoff & G. E. Markle & J. C. Petersen & T. Pinch (Eds.), Handbook of Science and Technology Studies (pp. 361-388). Thousand Oaks, Ca.: Sage. · Bauer, M. W., Petkova, K., & Boyadjjewa, P. (2000). Public knowledge of and attitudes to science - alternative measures. Science, Technology & Human Values, 25(1), 30-51. · Godin, B., & Gingras, Y. (2000). What is scientific and technological culture and how is it measured? A multidimensional model. Public Understanding of Science, 9(1), 43-58. · Roth, W.-M., & Lee, S. (2002). Scientific literacy as collective praxis. Public Understanding of Science, 11(1), 33-56.
5	26 Sep	Science and the media Online: Lewenstein, B. V. (2001). Science and Media. In N. J. Smelser & P. B. Baltes (Eds.), International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences (pp. 13654-13657). Oxford: Pergamon. Scan recent material in Science Communication and Public Understanding of Science Reports on: Burnham, J. (1987). How Superstition Won and Science Lost: Popularizing Science and Health in the United States. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. LaFollette, M. C. (1990). Making Science Our Own: Public Images of Science, 1910-1955. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Bucchi, M. (1998). Science and the Media: Alternative Routes in Scientific communication. London: Routledge. Nelkin, D. (1995). Selling Science: How the Press Covers Science and Technology (rev. ed.). New York: W. H. Freeman. Friedman, S., Dunwoody, S., & Rogers, C. (Eds.). (1999). Communicating Uncertainty: Media Coverage of New and Controversial Science. Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Hilgartner, S. (1990). The Dominant View of Popularization: Conceptual Problems, Political Uses. Social Studies of Science, 20(3), 519-539.
6	3 Oct	Science museums Chittenden, D., Farmelo, G., & Lewenstein, B. V. (Eds.). (2004). Creating Connections: Museums and the Public Understanding of Current Research. Walnut Creek, CA: Altamira Press. DUE: Research Proposal
7	10 Oct	NO CLASS: Fall Break
8	17 Oct	Public participation and public engagement Online: Hamlett, P. W. (2002). Technology Theory and Deliberative Democracy. Science, Technology & Human Values, 28(1), 112-140. Irwin, A. (2001). Constructing the scientific citizen: Science and democracy in the biosciences. Public Understanding of Science, 10(1), 1-18. Brossard, D., & Lewenstein, B. V. (2004). Assessing models of outreach in ELSI projects -- Report to the DOE's ELSI program. Ithaca, NY, USA: Cornell University, Department of Communication. Choose at least one paper from Simon Joss, [editor]. "Public Participation in Science and Technology [Special Issue]." Science and Public Policy 26, no. 5 (1999): 290-373. This journal is available online through the Library Gateway. Reports on: Sclove, R. (1995). Democracy and Technology. New York: Guilford. Irwin, A. (1995). Citizen science: a study of people, expertise, and sustainable development. London; New York: Routledge.
9	24 Oct	Public participation and public engagement, continued Online: Einsiedel, E., & Eastlick, D. L. (2001). Consensus conferences as deliberative democracy: A communications perspective. Science Communication, 21(4), 323-343. Einsiedel, E. F. (2002). Assessing a controversial medical technology: Canadian public consultations on xenotransplantation. Public Understanding of Science, 11(4), 315-331. Einsiedel, E. F., & Ross, H. (2002). Animal spare parts? A Canadian public consultation on xenotransplantation. Science and Engineering Ethics, 8(4), 579-591. Rowe, G., & Frewer, L. (2000). Public participation methods: A framework for evaluation. Science, Technology & Human Values, 25(1), 3-29. Rowe, G., & Frewer, L. J. (2005). A typology of public engagement mechanisms. Science, Technology & Human Values, 30(2), 251-290. McComas, K. (2001). Theory and Practice of Public Meetings. Communication Theory, 11, 36-55. McComas, K. M. (2001). Public Meetings about Local Waste Management Problems: Comparing Participants to Non-Participants. Environmental Management, 27(1), 135-147.
10	31 Oct	Science and culture Readings to be determined. Some possibilities: Durant, J., Gregory, J., & Levy-Leblond, J.-M. (Eds.). (1993). Science and Culture in Europe. London: Science Museum, on behalf of Alliage and Public Understanding of Science. Nelkin, D., & Lindee, M. S. (1995). The DNA Mystique: The Gene as a Cultural Icon. New York: W. H. Freeman and Company. Condit, C. M. (1999). The meanings of the gene: public debates about human heredity. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press. Turney, J. (1998). Frankenstein's footsteps: Science, genetics, and popular culture. New Haven: Yale University Press. Ede, Siân. "Practical Perspective: Science and the Contemporary Visual Arts." Public Understanding of Science 11, no. 1 (2002): 65-78. Nelkin, Dorothy, and Suzanne Anker. The Molecular Gaze : Art in the Genetic Age. New York: Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press, 2003.
11	7 Nov	Science and culture, continued
12	14 Nov	DUE: Preliminary draft of paper Research presentations
13	21 Nov	Research presentations
14	28 Nov	Whither now? Research agendas in PCST
Finals week		DUE: Revised research paper

This page prepared by Bruce V. Lewenstein
Last modified: 2 September 2005