Science Communication
MSc Module
2006-2007
Unit Coordinator: Dr David Kirby
Lecturers: Dr Jeff Hughes and Dr Emm Barnes
Centre for the History of Science, Technology and Medicine
Lectures/Seminars: Room 2.57, Simon Building, Fridays 10-12
Introduction
In 2002 the Geological Society of America sent out a Press Release about geologist
Kevin Pope’s challenge to the theory that dust from an asteroid impact caused the
extinction of the dinosaurs. News media from the Guardian to Radio 4 to BBC News
picked up the story. Other geologists responded to Pope’s claims in newspapers, on
the radio and on television. A Time magazine article about this story contained a still
from Dinosaur (2000) with the caption, “Even Disney has accepted the asteroid
theory.” implying through its caption that a Disney film works as a cultural barometer
to the acceptance or rejection of scientific thought. The Time article showcases the
uphill battle Pope faces to get his scientific ideas on the map since “even Disney”
accepts the asteroid theory. Pope is not only fighting other scientists, but also previous
media representations, created with the help of scientists who accept the asteroid
impact theory, in the news, on the internet and in movies such as Deep Impact,
Armageddon and Dinosaur. Realizing that “even Disney” is treating the asteroid
theory as “scientific fact,” Pope reached out to the public and other scientists through
alternative communication routes: sending out a press release to promote his findings.
This episode clearly indicates that science communication is a much more complex
process than merely publishing in scientific journals and attending scientific meetings.
It also raises some fascinating questions about the nature, contexts and goals of
science communication. Why was this particular story picked up by the media? Why
was a respected scientific institution sending out a Press Release? How does a Disney
film relate to scientific research? This MSc module in Science Communication
examines these types of questions as it explores the structure, meanings, and
implications of science communication. Today the sciences are linked to society
through many different channels of communication. The public interfaces with
science during controversies on science and technology issues that involve scientists
as well as journalists, politicians and the citizenry as a whole. Therefore, we will look
at the contexts in which science communication occurs including the “public
communication of science and technology” (PCST). We investigate the motivations of
and constraints on people involved in producing information about science for nonprofessional audiences while analyzing 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. To broaden our understandings of PCST we will construct our own
public communications about science and technology.
Aims and Objectives
This course explores the structure, meanings, and implications of science
communication. We will look at the contexts in which science communication occurs.
We investigate the motivations of and constraints on people involved in producing
information about science for non-professional audiences while analyzing the
functions of public communication of science and technology. We will also try to link
knowledge about the public communication of science and technology to research in
communication more broadly, in order to develop new knowledge about science
communication.
Topic
Readings
Lecturer Media Texts
Week 1
Introduction to Science
Communication
Burns
DK
Week 2
Public Understanding of
Science
Locke
Wynne
Gregory & Miller, Ch 3
JHu
Week 3
Outreach
Turney
EB
Week 4
Science Museums and
Science Centres
Gregory & Miller, Ch 8
MacDonald
Bradburne
JHu
Week5
News Content and News
Production
Gregory & Miller, Ch 5
Durant & Lindsey
Wilkie & Graham
JHu
Week 6
Alternative Modes of
Scientific Communication
Gregory
Bucchi
Lewenstein
DK
A for Andromeda
(2006)
Week 7
Media Frames and Media
Effects
Conrad
Krosnick
Condit
DK
News Articles
Relating to
Human Genetics
Week 8
Risk Communication
Allan
DK
Press Releases
Week 9
Natural History and
Documentary Films
Bousé
DK
March of the
Penguins (2005)
Week
10
Science Communication
and Cultural Meanings
Van Dijck
DK
11th Hour (2006)
“Resurrection”
Week
11
Science in Fictional
Media
Kirby
Lambourne
Mellor
DK
Deep Impact
(1998)
Readings
Week1
Burns, T.W. et al. (2003) “Science Communication: A Contemporary Definition,”
Public Understanding of Science, 12:183-202.
Week 2
Gregory, J. and S. Miller (2000) Science in Public: Communication, Culture and
Credibility (London: Plenum Trade), Chapter 3.
Locke, S. (2002) “The Public Understanding of Science: A Rhetorical Invention,”
Science, Technology and Human Values, 27(1): 87-111.
Wynne, B. (1996) “Misunderstood Misunderstandings: Social Identities and Public
Uptake of Science,” in Irwin and Wynne, eds. Misunderstanding Science, pp. 19-46.
Week 3
Turney, J. (ed.) Engaging science: Thoughts, deeds, analysis and action
<www.wellcome.ac.uk/assets/wtx033010.pdf>.
Week 4
Bradburne, J.M. (1998) “Dinosaurs and White Elephants: The Science Center in the
Twenty-First century,” Public Understanding of Science, 7: 237-253.
Gregory & Miller, Chapter 8.
Macdonald, S. (1996) “Authorising Science: Public Understanding of Science in
Museums,” in Irwin and Wynne, eds. Misunderstanding Science, pp. 152-171.
Week 5
Durant, J. and N. Lindsey (1998) The Great GM Food Debate (Parliamentary Office
of Science and Technology), available at www.parliament.uk/post/report138.pdf.
Gregory & Miller, Chapter 5.
Wilkie, T. and E. Graham (1998) “Power Without Responsibility: Media Portrayals of
Dolly and Science,” Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics, 7: 150-159.
Week 6
Gregory, J. (2003) “The Popularization and Excommunication of Fred Hoyle’s ‘Life
From Space’ Theory,” Public Understanding of Science, 12(1): 25-46.
Bucchi, M. (1996) “When Scientists Turn to the Public: Alternative Routes in Science
Communication,” Public Understanding of Science, 5: 375-94.
Lewenstein, B.V. (1995) “From Fax to Facts; Communication in the Cold Fusion
Saga,” Social Studies of Science 25: 403-436.
Week 7
Condit, C. et al. (2001) “An Exploratory Study of the Impact of News Headlines on
Genetic Determinism,” Science Communication, 22(4): 379-395.
Conrad, P. (1997) “Public Eyes and Private Genes: Historical Frames, New
Constructions, and Social Problems,” Social Problems, 44(2): 139-154.
Krosnick, Jon et al. (2000) “The Impact of the Fall 1997 Debate about Global
Warming on American Public Opinion,” Public Understanding of Science, 9: 239260.
Week 8
Allan, S. (2002) Media, Risk and Science (London: Open University Press), Chapters
5, 6, and 7.
Week 9
Bousé, D. (2000) Wildlife Films (Philadelphia: U. of Pennsylvania Press).
Chapters: 1, 3, 4
Week 10
Van Dijck, J. (1998) ImagEnation. Popular Images of Genetics (New York: New
York University Press), Chapters 4, 6, and 7.
Week 11
Kirby, D.A. (2003) “Science Consultants, Fictional Films and Scientific Practice,”
Social Studies of Science, 33(2): 231-268.
Lambourne, R. (1999) “Science Fiction and the Communication of Science,” in E.
Scanlon, E. Whitelegg and S. Yates (eds), Communicating Science: Contexts and
Channels (London: Routledge), pp. 146-157.
F. Mellor, “Colliding Worlds: Asteroid Research and the Legitimisation of War in
Space,” Social Studies of Science (2006): (forthcoming)
Teaching
The course will be taught in a weekly 2-hour workshop, with lecture and seminar
elements integrating hands-on analysis of science communication materials and
students’ own work.
Course sessions will be held on Fridays from 11:00-1:00 in Room G31, Simon
Building. Attendance is essential. Though the sessions will involve much informal
discussion, you should make notes as appropriate, and keep them carefully with any
handouts or other materials distributed by the lecturer. For each session, you will be
asked to complete a piece of reading, either before the class to form the basis for
discussion during the session, or as follow-up work. This is mandatory. We will
expect students to engage fully in these discussions. All readings will be available in
the CHSTM library, the Short Loan Collection of JRUL, or online.
In addition, there will be periodic media viewings on Wednesday evenings.
A major aim of the course is to relate to current events and recent scholarship in
science communication. We would like students to be using the tools learned from the
course to analyse ongoing developments in science communication and the public
understanding of science. All students are therefore required to keep tabs on
newspapers, popular magazines, television and the internet. You are encouraged to
bring relevant materials (clippings, recordings etc) to the class for discussion and
analysis. These materials can subsequently form the basis of individual or group
assessment projects.
Please check your e-mail regularly as course announcements and discussion will be
circulated this way. Students wishing to circulate information or comments to the
class between sessions can do so via me in the first instance.
Assessment
(25%) Outreach Project - You will be given a brief from a museum requesting
assistance designing outreach activities in one of the galleries. You will be asked to
plan an activity and provide documentation which would enable museum staff to
deliver what you propose. Your final assessed piece of work will be no longer than
1,500 words, but you will also be able to submit drawings or photographs, and notes,
as part of the assessed piece of work. Further details will be given out in week 3.
(75%) PCST Project - You will design a PCST presentation in one of the following
areas: News (radio, television, or newspaper); Press Release; Documentary (short film
script); Natural History Film (short film script); Fictional Text (short script for radio,
television, or film); Museum Exhibition. Other forms could be considered by consult
with the unit coordinator beforehand. A 2,500 word justification/essay drawing from
academic literature will accompany your presentation.
Plagiarism
Plagiarism is a very serious offence, comparable to cheating in exams. It consists of
passing off others’ work as though it were your own (e.g. lifting passages – either
word-for-word or closely paraphrased – from books, articles, the internet, etc.). Even
‘recycling’ parts of your own work, which have been submitted for assessment at this
University or elsewhere, constitutes plagiarism.
It is not difficult for staff to recognise instances of plagiarism, and software for
detecting material lifted from the internet is available.
The penalties for plagiarism range from being required to resubmit the piece of work
in question (with a maximum possible mark of 40%) for minor instances to expulsion
from the University in serious ones. It is your responsibility, therefore, to familiarise
yourself with the University’s policy on plagiarism before you prepare and submit any
coursework so that you do not inadvertently commit this offence. The information you
need can be accessed via the Student Intranet (via the University’s home page).
In order to verify that you have understood the rules about this offence, you will be
asked to sign a ‘plagiarism declaration’ form when you join the course.
Disability
The University of Manchester is committed to providing all students access to
learning in the way most beneficial to them. It is important to tell us about any
additional support that you need. If you have a disability, a learning difficulty or any
condition that YOU FEEL may affect your work then you might want to tell us about
it. Please feel free to approach us to discuss any additional needs that you have. You
may wish to email us, or we can arrange a meeting. Any discussion we have will be
confidential. If you wish, you can also inform the Disability Support Office. It is
based on the lower ground floor of the John Owens Building. You can drop in, but
for
appointments/enquiries
telephone
0161
275
7512,
or
email
disability@manchester.ac.uk.
General Reading
J. Gregory and S. Miller (2000) Science in Public: Communication, Culture and
Credibility (London: Plenum Trade).
M. Bucchi (1998) Science and the Media: Alternative Routes in Science
Communication (London: Routledge).
A. Irwin and B. Wynne, eds. (1996) Misunderstanding Science (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press).
A. Gross, et al. (2002) Communicating Science: The Scientific Article from the 17th
Century to the Present (Oxford: Oxford University Press).
E. Scanlon, et al. (1999) Communicating Science: Contexts and Channels (London:
Routledge).
D. Nelkin and S.M. Lindee (1995) The DNA Mystique (New York: W.H. Freeman).
P. Broks (2006) Understanding Popular Science (Maidenhead: Open UP).
A. Karpf (1988) Doctoring the Media: The Reporting of Health and Medicine
(London: Routledge).
S. Rampton and J. Stauber (1995) Toxic Sludge is Good For You: Lies, Damn Lies
and the Public Relations Industry (Monroe, ME: Common Courage Press).
G. Holton and W. Blanpied, eds. (1976), Science and its Public: The Changing
Relationship (Dordecht: D. Reidel).
M. Shortland & J. Gregory (1991) Communicating Science: A Handbook (Longman).
R. Levinson and J. Thomas, eds. (1997), Science Today: Problem or Crisis? (London:
Routledge).
Allan, S. et al., eds. (2000) Environmental Risks and the Media (London: Routledge).
U. Beck (1992), Risk Society (London: Sage).
C.P. Toumey (1996) Conjuring Science (Durham, NC: Duke University Press).
Pernick, M. (1996) The Black Stork: Eugenics and the Death of “Defective” Babies in
American Medicine and Motion Pictures Since 1915 (Oxford: Oxford UP).
R. Silverstone (1985) Framing Science: The Making of a BBC Documentary (London:
BFI).
Mitman, G. (1999) Reel Nature (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press).
J. C. Burnham (1987) How Superstition Won and Science Lost: Popularizing Science
and Health in the United States. New Brunswick: Rutgers U. Press.
T. Shinn and R. Whitley, eds. (1985) Expository Science (Dordecht: D. Reidel).
J. Turney (1998) Frankenstein’s Footsteps: Science, Genetics and Popular Culture
(New Haven: Yale U. Press).
M.C. LaFollette (1990) Making Science Our Own: Public Images of Science 19101955 (Chicago: U. of Chicago Press).
G. Farmelo and J. Carding (1997) Here and Now. Contemporary Science and
Technology in Museums and Science Centres (London: Science Museum).
S. Macdonald, ed. (1998) The Politics of Display: Museums, Science, Culture
(London: Routledge).
S. Lindqvist (2000) Museums of Modern Science (Canton, MA: Science History
Publications).
Useful journals
Public Understanding of Science <pus.sagepub.com/>.
Science Communication <scx.sagepub.com/>.
Configurations <muse.jhu.edu/journals/configurations/>.
Literature and Medicine <www.press.jhu.edu/journals/literature_and_medicine/>.
Websites
A great deal of information about science communication and public understanding of
science can be found on the internet. Likewise, the web is an excellent source of
materials for analysis (e.g. news sites; research councils’, laboratories’ and scientists’
own websites). In general be careful, however, to be critical of any materials you find
on the web; like any source, don’t take them at face value.
The PSI-COM website and listserv is very useful: <psci-com.org.uk/> I also suggest
you join and check the PSI-COM listserv for job opportunities. Many organizations,
including museums, media centres, science organizations and think tanks advertise for
jobs on this list. To subscribe go to: <www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/psci-com.html>











The Guardian’s “Bad Science” web site is useful and often deals with issues
of science and media: <www.guardian.co.uk/science>
The New Scientist website is very useful: <www.newscientist.com/>
Transcripts for numerous BBC Horizon programmes (invaluable source
material for projects) can be found at: </www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/>.
You can also find clips of BBC natural history programmes at
The House of Lords (2000) report on Science and Society (found at
<www.parliament.the-stationeryoffice.co.uk/pa/ld199900/ldselect/ldsctech/38/3801.htm>).
U.S. National Science Foundation (2004), Science and Engineering Indicators
2004, Chapter 7 on “Science and Technology: Public Attitudes and
Understanding,” at <www.nsf.gov/sbe/srs/seind04/c7/c7h.htm>
‘Official’ information about public understanding of science programmes in
the UK can be found on the Royal Society website at:
<www.royalsoc.ac.uk/scforall/index.html>
The Association of British Science Writers site is at: <www.absw.org.uk/>
Similarly, but from an American perspective, the Council for the
Advancement of Science Writing: <nasw.org/users/casw/>
At a European level is the European Initiative for Communicators of Science:
<www.eicos.mpg.de/>
The Wellcome Trust has a useful site with links to various science
communication and ‘public understanding’ sources:
<www.wellcome.ac.uk/en/1/misinfsubpus.html>
For general background, you might find the Media and Communications
Studies site useful: <www.aber.ac.uk/media/Functions/mcs.html>

A fascinating survey of public and journalists’ views on the top news stories of
the twentieth century is at: <www.newseum.org/century/index.htm>