How institutional factors at US land-grant universities impact scientists' public scholarship.

The call for public scholarship to emphasize the broader impacts of science has raised questions about how universities can support this work among their scientists. This study quantitatively assesses how institutional factors shape scientists' participation in public scholarship, a subset of public engagement focusing on scientists' involvement in public debate and democratic decision-making related to science policy. Based on a 2018 survey of scientists from 46 US land-grant universities (N = 6,242), hierarchical linear modeling results show that institutional factors, including tenure guidelines and the extent of government funding, play a minor role in influencing scientists' public scholarship participation. More importantly, scientists' perceptions of the university climate on support for engagement, including support from high-level administrators and for graduate students, are significant predictors of participation in public scholarship. Ultimately, these findings support the recommendation that universities should coordinate individual motivations with institutional missions to support a broader culture of public engagement.

Toward product-based regulation of crops.

Current process-based approaches to regulation are no longer fit for purpose.

Public engagement: Faculty lived experiences and perspectives underscore barriers and a changing culture in academia.

The idea of faculty engaging in meaningful dialogue with different publics instead of simply communicating their research to interested audiences has gradually morphed from a novel concept to a mainstay within most parts of the academy. Given the wide variety of public engagement modalities, it may be unsurprising that we still lack a comprehensive and granular understanding of factors that influence faculty willingness to engage with public audiences. Those nuances are not always captured by quantitative surveys that rely on pre-determined categories to assess scholars' willingness to engage. While closed-ended categories are useful to examine which factors influence the willingness to engage more than others, it is unlikely that pre-determined categories comprehensively represent the range of factors that undermine or encourage engagement, including perceptual influences, institutional barriers, and scholars' lived experiences. To gain insight into these individual perspectives and lived experiences, we conducted focus group discussions with faculty members at a large midwestern land-grant university in the United States. Our findings provide context to previous studies of public engagement and suggest four themes for future research. These themes affirm the persistence of institutional barriers to engaging with the public, particularly the expectations in the promotion process for tenure-track faculty. However, we also find a perception that junior faculty and graduate students are challenging the status quo by introducing a new wave of attention to public engagement. This finding suggests a "trickle-up" effect through junior faculty and graduate students expecting institutional support for public engagement. Our findings highlight the need to consider how both top-down factors such as institutional expectations and bottom-up factors such as graduate student interest shape faculty members' decisions to participate in public engagement activities.

What we know about effective public engagement on CRISPR and beyond.

Advances in gene editing technologies for human, plant, and animal applications have led to calls from bench and social scientists, as well as a wide variety of societal stakeholders, for broad public engagement in the decision-making about these new technologies. Unfortunately, there is limited understanding among the groups calling for public engagement on CRISPR and other emerging technologies about 1) the goals of this engagement, 2) the modes of engagement and what we know from systematic social scientific evaluations about their effectiveness, and 3) how to connect the products of these engagement exercises to societal decision or policy making. Addressing all three areas, we systematize common goals, principles, and modalities of public engagement. We evaluate empirically the likely successes of various modalities. Finally, we outline three pathways forward that deserve close attention from the scientific community as we navigate the world of Life 2.0.

Pink slimed: Media framing of novel food technologies and risk related to ground beef and processed foods in the U.S.

In March 2012 ABC World News Report aired a series of reports on lean finely textured beef (LFTB) that resulted in a 10-year low for beef prices and the bankruptcy of a major firm that produced LFTB. Using a random sample survey, we tested the effects of the media frame "pink slime" and industry frame "lean finely textured beef," alongside media use, food-related knowledge, trust in food-related institutions and preference for local, fresh, organic and GMO-free foods on perceptions of risk related to ground beef containing pink slime/LFTB, processed foods and red meat. The "pink slime" frame was strongly and positively associated with risk related to ground beef, but not risk related to red meat or processed foods. Attention to news stories about pink slime/LFTB was strongly associated with risk related to ground beef and processed foods, but not red meat. We found varying effects of food values, knowledge and trust on all three dependent variables. Implications are discussed.

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine report on genetically engineered crops influences public discourse.

In May 2016, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) released the report "Genetically Engineered Crops: Experiences and Prospects," summarizing scientific consensus on genetically engineered crops and their implications. NASEM reports aim to give the public and policymakers information on socially relevant science issues. Their impact, however, is not well understood. This analysis combines national pre- and post-report survey data with a large-scale content analysis of Twitter discussion to examine the report's effect on public perceptions of genetically modified organisms (GMOs). We find that the report's release corresponded with reduced negativity in Twitter discourse and increased ambivalence in public risk and benefit perceptions of GMOs, mirroring the NASEM report's conclusions. Surprisingly, this change was most likely for individuals least trusting of scientific studies or university scientists. Our findings indicate that NASEM consensus reports can help shape public discourse, even in, or perhaps because of, the complex information landscape of traditional and social media.