Journal of Science Policy & Governance
Volume 24, Issue 01 | April 30, 2024

Research Paper:  ​Evolving Attitudes of Science Graduate Students Toward Science Policy and Communication ​

Emily Schafer
  • Northwestern University, Department of Biomedical Engineering, Evanston, IL, USA  

​Corresponding author: [email protected] ​​​
Keywords:  science policy; science communication; graduate education; workforce development
https://doi.org/10.38126/JSPG240114 ​

Executive Summary

Widespread changes in the exchange and politicization of science have made it imperative for scientists to be prepared to engage in science communication and science policy. Separately, science graduate students express interest in a more diverse array of career trajectories beyond the traditional academic research path. These forces together inspire changes to graduate education to develop critical science communication and policy skills. However, universities remain focused on training students in primarily academic research skills. This case study measured changes to beliefs about and participation in science communication and policy among science graduate students over three years to better understand the evolution of interest in these practices. Importantly, not only did students report a significantly increased interest in and belief in the importance of science communication and policy, but also these increases were observed regardless of their initial beliefs. Graduate students also provided qualitative feedback about the reasons behind these changes and perceived barriers to participating in science communication and policy. These data help to both motivate universal changes to graduate education to include science communication and policy and to inform stakeholders on how these changes can be optimally designed to address barriers and interests. Finally, corresponding policy changes are recommended to departments, universities, scientific societies, and other stakeholders to enact effective change to graduate training.

-Read the full article through download.-

Background header image courtesy of UCUSA
Emily A. Schafer is a Ph.D. Candidate in Biomedical Engineering at Northwestern University studying the use of organic conducting polymers in bioelectronic devices, specifically to design new biosensors for the human body. Emily dedicates her time outside the lab to building scientific literacy amongst the broader public and training peer early-career researchers in science policy and communication skills. She credits the influence of organizations like the Science Policy Outreach Taskforce (SPOT) at Northwestern University and the National Science Policy Network (NSPN) in helping her build these passions and hopes to have a career as a scientist that makes science more accessible and impactful. 
​
Acknowledgements 
The author would like to thank Northwestern University’s student group, the Science Policy Outreach Taskforce, for their support of this work, particularly student Molly Sun and faculty advisor Dr. Yarrow Axford.​

References

  1. American Geophysical Union, “Voices for Science.” https://www.agu.org/honors/voices%20for%20sc ience 
  2. Besley JC. 2018. The National Science Foundation’s Science and Technology Survey and Support for Science Funding, 2006–2014. Public Understanding of Science 27(1):94–109. 
  3. Cassels A, Hughes MA, Cole C, Mintzes B, Lexchin J, and McCormack JP. 2003. “Drugs in the news: an 
  4. analysis of Canadian newspaper coverage of new prescription drugs.” CMAJ, Vol. 168(9), pp. 
  5. 1133–1137. ​https://www.cmaj.ca/content/168/9/1133 
  6. “Congress Wraps Up Science Budgets for Fiscal Year 2023,” American Institute of Physics. 2022.  https://ww2.aip.org/fyi/2022/congress-wraps-sci ence-budgets-fiscal-year-2023 
  7. Dempster, Georgia, Georgina Sutherland, and Louise Keogh. “Scientific research in news media: a case study of misrepresentation, sensationalism and harmful recommendations.” Journal of Science 
  8. Communication 21, no. 1 (2022) A06. https://doi.org/10.22323/2.21010206 
  9. DORA. 2023. https://sfdora.org/ 
  10. Ganapati S and Ritchie TS. 2021. “Professional development and career-preparedness experiences of STEM Ph.D. students: Gaps and avenues for improvement.” PloS One. 
  11. Jewett, Andrew. “How Americans Came to Distrust Science.” Boston Review, https://bostonreview.net/science-nature/andrew-je wett-how-americans-came-distrust-science 
  12. Lee S, Tandoc Jr. EC and Lee EWJ. 2023. “Social media may hinder learning about science; social media's role in learning about COVID-19.”  https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9 473145/ 
  13. Leshner, Alan I., “Public Engagement with Science,” Science, American Association for the Advancement of Science, Vol. 299(5609), (Feb. 14, 2003): 977, DOI: 10.1126/science.299.5609.977 
  14. McDowell GS, Gunsalus KTW, MacKellar DC et al. Shaping the Future of Research: a perspective from junior scientists [version 2; peer review: 2 approved]. F1000Research 2015, 3:291 (https://f1000research.com/articles/3-291/v2)
  15. Muñoz A, Moreno C, Luján JL. 2012. Who Is Willing to Pay for Science? On the Relationship between Public Perception of Science and the Attitude to Public Funding of Science. Public Understanding of 
  16. Science 21(2):242–53. 
  17. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. “Eric and Wendy Schmidt Awards for Excellence in Science Communications.” https://www.nationalacademies.org/awards/excell ence-in-communication 
  18. National Science Foundation. 2019. “National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics: Survey of Earned  Doctorates.” https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsf21308/data-tables
  19. Schaffer, Lena Maria, Bianca Oehl, and Thomas Bernauer. “Are policymakers responsive to public demand in climate politics?” Journal of Public Policy, vol. 42, no. 1 (2022) pgs. 136-64. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0143814X21000088
  20. Society for Neuroscience, “Early Career Policy Ambassadors.”  https://www.sfn.org/advocacy/us-advocacy-progr ams/early-career-policy-ambassadors 
  21. Stjernquist, Anna. “Trust in science becomes a political issue. How did that happen?” The Christian Science Monitor, 
  22. https://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2020/1123/ Trust-in-science-becomes-a-political-issue.-How-d id-that-happen 
  23. Universiteit Leiden. n.d. “Academia in Motion: Recognition & Rewards at Leiden University.” Accessed March 14, 2024. https://www.universiteitleiden.nl/binaries/conten t/assets/algemeen/academia-in-motion.english.pd.
  24. West, Jevin D. and Carl T. Bergstrom. “Misinformation in and about science.” PNAS 118, no. 15. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1912444117 
  25. “WISL Award for Communicating Doctoral Research to the Public,” University of Wisconsin-Madison. 2023. https://chem.wisc.edu/wisl-award-for-communica ting-doctoral-research-to-the-public/ 
  26. Woolston, Chris. 2022. “‘I don’t want this kind of life’: graduate students question career options.” Nature, https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-035 86-8 
  27. Working group for responsible evaluation of a researcher. 2020. Good practice in researcher evaluation. Recommendation for the responsible evaluation of a researcher in Finland. Helsinki: The Committee for Public Information (TJNK) and Federation of Finnish Learned Societies (TSV). 
  28. https://avointiede.fi/sites/default/files/2020-03/r esponsible-evalution.pdf.
DISCLAIMER: The findings and conclusions published herein are solely attributed to the author and not necessarily endorsed or adopted by the Journal of Science Policy and Governance. Articles are distributed in compliance with copyright and trademark agreements.

ISSN 2372-2193
© 2022 Journal of Science Policy & Governance, Inc. All rights reserved. The opinions, findings and conclusions from JSPG publications, additional article commentaries and related events do not necessarily reflect the views of the journal.