MP0605 (R)

MP0605 / Media Dissertation
 
Abstract
This paper strives to use the understanding gained on audiences to support the use of
entertainment media for science communication. This paper will discuss how audiences
behave when presented with science-related content, how much attention they give to it,
the specific effects it has on the audience and society, how they respond to ‘informative’
versus ‘entertaining’ content, and whether the audience passively believes everything they
are told or actively derive meaning from content and personal experience. This paper
notes that effects on audiences cannot be ascribed to any one media as factors like
culture are at play to influence behaviour and thought patterns. Hence, this paper argues
for using entertainment content and social media for science communication, so that more
laypeople may enter the domain of science as they do culture.
1. Introduc.on
The story of Apollo 11’s lunar landing on July 1969 marked the peak of the space race and
human ingenuity as the world observed in fascination from moving images showing the
first humans walking on the moon. This was a time when space was seen as the next
frontier for conquest, emerging intense interests in both factual and fictional narratives
chronicled for the Sputnik and Apollo programmes, and produced for television series Star
of1 28
Loo Jian Wei, Newell
Northumbria: 14044277
Kaplan: CT0232995
Making sense of science: an
unconventional use of the
entertainment genre
June, 2016

Trek and Battlestar Galactica. During this brief period, a cultural appreciation of science
had been exalted by scientists, journalists, and scriptwriters dedicated to their own field of
research-based development (Gregory and Miller, 2000, pp.4-13). As well, scientific
discoveries were reported like information about current affairs, entailing the conditions of
rigour and immediacy (Cosce.org, 2015, pp.143). However, the cultural standing for real
science is in steep decline since the media became more obliged to present content based
on the preferences of large private funders (ibid., pp.142). This translated to the print,
radio, and television’s diminishing role in science communication; as sponsored content
meant that producers may perpetuate or invent mythologies within the consumer world to
generate profit and goodwill for the funding bodies in politics, commerce or culture (ibid.) .1
Unless governed by policy, broadcasters, publishers, and editors need not always assume
the responsibility of a direct educational role that appreciates and cultivates rationalist
values driving the scientific method to knowledge.
Initially, the widening gulf between science and the media society meant that
science would retract back to communicating through the manuscript not too jargonistic or
logorrheic for experts to imbibe (Pasquali, 2007). As more quality control and information
accuracy is possible with a detailed account of data, research, experimental methods and
results, and attribution to other scientific literature. However, traditional means of
communicating science is mostly esoteric, formal, and passive; keeping many discoveries
within a closed circle and the public behind time (Darzentas et al., 2007, pp.886). The
public is an important party of science communication because they may reciprocate in the
democratic process to generate funding and public support for further studies (Gregory et
al., 2000, pp.10-16). Further, it is within the interests of science communication to provide
background scientific knowledge to the public so that they can make informed decisions
(ibid.). With the advent of Web 2.0, static webpages have evolved to promote a culture of
participation and collaboration between online users; dawning a new era of information
sharing (Meikle and Young, 2012, pp.65-68). Nevertheless, the success of web-
communities and user-driven sites such as YouTube and Facebook in democratising
knowledge suggests the opportunity to narrow the information gap between experts and
For example, advertisements for health, beauty, and slimming products with “latest technology”1
and “recommended by doctors” slogans; or, shows like Ancient Aliens and Ghost Hunters
packaged as a science documentary; or, articles written by Friends of Science using scientific
language to propagate climate change denialism.
of2 28
Loo Jian Wei, Newell Northumbria: 14044277 Ÿ Kaplan: CT0232995

laypeople (Darzentas et al., 2007, pp.886). With an emerging collective intelligence and
open commentary enabled (ibid.), communicating science on social media becomes a
shorter two-way street than the manuscript. Communication is sped up and information
travels more broadly, connecting people and content over greater distances and relations
(ibid).
However, the Web 2.0 era has also given rise to user-generated science content
based on both credible sources as well as fallacious arguments. This resulted in more
polarisation between groups, as the audience use the media to reinforce their personal
beliefs. As well, content that is packaged as facts tend to have little to do with it, and
fuelling audiences with the wrong information has only distanced science and the public
even further. With science being perceived as a complicated subject for many, this paper
proposes the use of the entertainment genre instead of traditional methods to
communicate science. To quote Jenkins, (2006, pp.236) “The news media is walking away
from historical responsibilities, and popular culture is taking its pedagogical potential more
seriously”. This is because the entertainment genre has the capacity to let audiences
question their surroundings and derive greater meaning from the media than the
conventions of informative media, which offers structured answers coming from producers
whose motives are unsympathetic or unknown. Moreover, more young people are getting
information about the world from entertainment media instead of news media (Jenkins,
2006, pp.235), suggesting that both entertainment and information can coexist in the same
genre. If this is true, scientiﬁc texts can also be made entertaining by the right producers.
2.1 Science
“The Birst principle [of science] is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest
person to fool.”
- Richard Feynman, physics Nobel laureate, 1965.
Science is a body of knowledge based on demonstrable and reproducible information.
Derived from the Latin word ‘scientia,’ the deﬁnition of science according to the modern
dictionary is, “the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the
physical and natural world through observation and experiment” (Oxford Academic English,
of3 28

2016). There are four key words to note in the above description when entering the
domain of science: ‘observation,’ ‘experiment,’ ‘demonstrable,’ and ‘reproducible’. The
function of an experiment is to test an observation, if indeed, the guess was true or false,
specific or not. That experiment must be demonstrable, and whatever results to come
must be reported and reproducible in a corresponding manner.
Linguistically, the terminology which science uses may confuse the untrained mind
into thinking that, like language, its form is fluid. That is not the case. Use of words such
as ‘theory’ and ‘fact’ are not interchangeable with ‘opinion’ or ‘idea’. Science values
accuracy in information and a reliable approach towards results. Scientific facts are often
reduced far beyond the tenets for happiness that it becomes counterintuitive to those who
are non-scientists. For this reason, science would not advance fast enough and propel
societies forward if it depended on popular opinion . However, it can become societies’2
engine of prosperity by conducting itself carefully, ethically and legally. Otherwise, it dares
do all that may convey the truth, to categorise the universe plainly on measurable and
objective certainty. What dares more is none, lest it spirals down into the realm of
pseudoscience and mythology. But those can be seen as two extreme ends of a
spectrum. In the middle of it, there is the domain of science communication that thrives on
using entertainment media to reach the non-scientist majority (Olson, 2009). This
sentiment has been arrived at in the subsequent chapters and discussions of this paper.
2.2 Importance of Science Communica.on
In the book Science in Public, Gregory and Miller (1998) described the term ‘science
communication’ as public communication of science-related topics to non-experts, typically
through a mass medium. The goals of science communication are to generate support for
scientific study (in terms of funding, policy, or public opinion ), address misinformation to3
the public, and enable them to make informed decisions or have informed thought
processes (Gregory & Miller, 1998). For example, in the effort to end the widespread of
Ebola, scientists had to effectively communicate different aspects of the topic to the public
For example; cultural, religious as well as other structural oppressions which delayed2
advancements in medicine during the Middle Ages and Renaissance (Hajdu, 2007).
Although science is certainly not a democratic discipline, some fields have been penalised or3
discontinued due to public protest (e.g., Embryonic stem cell research banned in Germany,
New Zealand, some states of USA, and most of Africa and South America).
of4 28

(typically, through a health authority that interprets raw scientiﬁc information to the public),
such as treatment options, the symptoms of an infection, modes of virus transmission, and
what preventive measures can be taken. Upon underlining the severity of Ebola, the public
might understand how to protect themselves and each other from it, but governments and
organisations may redirect funds into researching a cure for the disease without backlash.
Although relatively new an academic discipline science communication is (Cosce.org,
2015), it has already left a great social impact on laypeople and shall continue so. The
following two passages present real examples of a (i) positive, and (ii) negative, effect
science communication has had on the world to date.
(i) From a democratic perspective, well-informed societies or organisations can
better decide on what policies are best for their governments or managements to enact
(Gregory et al., 2000). As knowledge promotes a culture of responsible voting (i.e.,
support for a cause), more sentient beings can be liberated from inadequate traditions
being discontinued for the public good. Protecting the rights of minorities and animals, or
providing adequate support to the less-abled, is example of how this plays out. When
scientists were able to effectively communicate about sexual orientation (i.e., a genetic
predisposition where homosexuality is found not just in humans but in many species of the
animal kingdom), homosexuality became to be seen by more people as a naturally
occurring phenomenon rather than an emerging decadence. To quote Gallup, “Among the
general population, those who view homosexuality as a genetic trait tend to be more accepting of
it than those who believe it is a function of one’s environment, which implies a more voluntary
lifestyle choice” (Carlson, 2002). As time passed and more people came to accept
homosexuality (not without campaigning efforts of advocate groups), the United States of
America (USA) Supreme Court eventually ruled on June 2015 to legalise same-sex
marriage across the country. Another example of laws being changed when scientists
communicate with the public is in India, May 2013, when the Ministry of Environment and
Forests enforced a nationwide ban on dolphin captivity. The decision was met with large
support from environmentalist grass-roots, after scientiﬁc research on dolphin behaviour
revealed irrefutable evidence of high intelligence synonymous to “non-human persons”, thus
recommending its ethical release from captivity (Ens-newswire.com, 2013). Also, with
regard to delinquent youths, more schools are urged to partner closely with external
mental health clinics who are better trained to identify and treat youths with mental illness
than school teachers who double as student counsellors (Bloom, 2015, pp.3-19). This
of5 28

collaboration is only possible when the management of a school recognises the mental
health challenges susceptible to youths, which social scientists relay are standard causes
of disciplinary issues and poor grades (Richardson, Morrissette and Zucker, 2012, pp.24).
(ii) The idea that human activity can impact the global climate was as previously
controversial amongst the scientific community as it is now amongst the general public.
Supporting a hypothesis of this magnitude required a prolonged process of scrutiny, thus a
few contrarian papers would have seen publication in scientific literature. Including the
ones by Shaviv (2002), Svensmark (1998), Friis-Christensen and Lassen (1991), and,
Marsh and Svensmark (2000) which undermined human impact by considering cosmic
causes. The media and some organisations then leverage on these examples, as well as
similar others, to contest the causes of global warming in public discourse; albeit mostly
ignoring the scientific consensus while cherry-picking their sources (Benestad et al., 2015;
Rahmstorf, 2012). For instance, Canadian organisation Friends of Science based their
website and forum discussions on one contrarian paper that understated the extent of the
greenhouse effect (Benestad et al., 2015; Miskolczi, 2010). In Norway, an organisation
called Klimarealistene periodically issues leaflets to school headmasters and students
conveying opinions from contrarian scientists to dismiss the conclusions drawn by the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (Benestad et al., 2015; Klimarealistene.com,
2016). They have also used the popular website forskning.no to promote controversial
content targeted at the general public. On YouTube, delusive videos including The Great
Global Warming Swindle and The Cloud Mystery remain highly accessible by anyone online.
The videos were professionally produced with the advice of contrarian scientists to
persuade viewers into believing that volcanic eruptions produced more carbon dioxide
than humans could (Durkin, 2007), and that changes in the Sun’s energy output are
responsible for global temperatures to fluctuate (Mortensen and Svensmark, 2008).
Many conspiracy theories have emerged alleging that the scientific consensus for
anthropogenic climate change does not exist or that scientists defrauded the public with
scare tactics (White, 2012, p.49). Perhaps the greatest dissenting voice in the climate
change debate is the United States of America, where a 2015 study identified 4,556
opinion leaders and their affiliation to 164 denial networks, including salient organisations4
Referring to famed individuals including scientists, politicians, celebrities and presenters who4
possess a certain degree of authority, credibility, or social influence.
of6 28

like the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change, the Science and
Environmental Policy Project, and The Heartland Institute (Farell, 2015; Roston, 2015).
Denial networks have played an active role in the public discourse and dissemination of
content at variance with the notions held by most climatologists (Benestad et al., 2015;
Rahmstorf, 2012). As stated by these groups, the earth undergoes a natural warming and
cooling cycle, much like the annual changing of seasons, regardless of the amount of
carbon dioxide humans are capable of emitting (Benestad et al., 2015). However, such
factors have been taken into consideration when developing climate models (Rennie,
2009). The collective research by scientists from a multitude of national, political, and
social backgrounds have not found evidence of a conspiracy (Rennie, 2009), but of recent
climates dramatically changing in geological terms (Anderegg et al., 2010). As well, the
global average concentration of carbon dioxide detected has been steadily increasing
each year, running the greenhouse effect amok (Esrl.noaa.gov, 2016). Ergo, the scientific
consensus maintains that human influences are the most likely of causes for altering
earth’s climate (Anderegg et al., 2010).
The above examples show the importance of science communication in present-
day and how it can benefit those who might not be direct recipients of its message when
its goals are achieved. Science communication reaches to people in authority positions as
well as the general public, making it especially relevant in today’s knowledge economy and
progressive society (Gregory & Miller, 1998). However, more importantly for the
discussions in this paper, the examples show how some activities in the guise of science
communication can ironically generate pseudoscience and moral panics in the lay public.
Content that is overtly packaged to ‘inform’ may not always benefit its intended publics
(Jenkins, 2006), as audiences exposed to such content may respond radically towards
those messages and become more personally than objectively invested in it (ibid., pp.
235-238). This happens when the public strongly believes they have been oppressed by
scientists, but are unaware that they have been presented with fallacious arguments and
false information, nor have they perceived beyond the general notion that science is
historically and intrinsically controversial despite its contributions to society (Benestad et
al., 2015; Cosce.org, 2015). This is a stigma which science communication has to
overcome because the large majority of audiences are not scientists, hence they might
develop irrational fears towards scientists given their lack of understanding on the methods
used in modern science (ibid.).
of7 28

3. Understanding the World Audience
This chapter applies the concepts of hypodermic needle model, two-step Blow, and uses and
gratiBications to gain an understanding of the audience from different perspectives, as well
to discuss the limitations and threats encountered in science communication using various
approaches.
The hypodermic needle posits a passive audience who acts accordingly to what the
media asks of them (Katz & Lazasfeld, 1955). This would mean that the audience
believes every science-related content they have consumed through every form of media,
regardless if a blog, campaign brochure, advertisement, broadcast programme, scientiﬁc
manuscript or textbook. In other words, the hypodermic needle model would view even
today’s audience as singular and homogenous, but also unquestioning and complying to
the ideological perspectives of mainstream and niche channels. This model makes more
sense when the audience is seen as a self-contained group exposed to one key message
at a time. And it would mean that the audience remains unexposed to other media
messages within a given time or place. For example, political parties may use the effects
of propaganda to recruit members by cutting or limiting access to contrarian content,
global search engines, and other forms of mass communication beyond its territory of
control. China has extremely limited access to global sites like Google and Facebook, but
deploys its own search engine and social networking site Baidu and Baidu Space to
maximally conserve its sociopolitical values. This facilitates the Chinese government to
craft, monitor, and regulate media messages in accordance to its interests, and is a
treatment given similarly to manufacture subordination in special cadet trainings. Present-
day militant groups like Isis and the Anti-balaka use propaganda for recruitment and public
support over social media sites by manipulating the content of its media.
Although the hypodermic needle theory is criticised for its linear communication
model, it continues to affect the way researchers view the powerful effects of the media.
According to Gerbner (2002, pp.47), the more exposure an audience gains to a particular
media message, the more likely that they believe the message to be real. Despite having
more variation of content available in the Web 2.0 era, audiences who are coerced or
choose to consume content from the same channel over prolonged periods of time could
of8 28

be injecting themselves with the hypodermic needle effect. From a sociological
perspective, this phenomenon may be referred as Groupthink (Weaver, 2007, pp.821-833).
According to social scientist Kimberlee Weaver (2007), Groupthink states that groups are
unable to critically assess contrarian viewpoints because the individual seeks to be a
member of the group. This causes individual members to conform their emotional,
behavioural, and thought patterns to ones held by the group (ibid.), accept opinions from
within that have been repeated to them three times or more (ibid.), and make irrational
decisions through their group identity (ibid.). This may explain the rise of fringe beliefs and
antiestablishment groups in the Web 2.0 era, including ones that are currently against
science and scientists. Further, today’s world audience is likely to be more divided than
the number of countries on the map, to a point where many different and opposing views
exist within the society, as the Internet allows all opinions to be heard and ascribed by the
individual when production and consumption of media are not tightly policed. This causes
another sociological phenomenon between two or more groups, known as Group
Polarisation (Weaver, 2007, pp.821-833), where intergroup relations worsen because each
group pushes to adopt a more extreme stance in their views and values in order to
differentiate themselves from other groups. These trends do not indicate good prospects
for science communication, which at its inception already stands between two very distinct
groups: scientists and the lay public. Hence, when both groups try too hard to validate
their values and ‘versions’ of what is true, they end up drifting further apart, which is the
opposite effect of what science and the public seek from each other.
The two-step ﬂow model views audiences as partly active, in that after being
exposed to a media they refer to an opinion leader before preferring it (Katz, 1957).
According to Katz (1957), an opinion leader can be an esteemed individual, authority or
celebrity who endorses a viewpoint publicly. This model posits that opinion leaders play a
key role in media effects, as the messages endorsed by opinion leaders have greater
weighting than the messages conveyed from a particular media (ibid.). For instance,
students may consult professors regarding anthropogenic climate change after hearing or
reading about it from the news before believing the media. Or, pet owners may use the
advice given by professional veterinaries regarding feeding animals with human snacks,
before believing online articles that warn of the dangers of feeding chocolate to dogs. In
the context of science communication, this means that messages from traditional means of
relaying information to the public (i.e., research papers, academic texts, scientiﬁc
of9 28

databases) may, through the ideas and thoughts expressed by an opinion leader (e.g.,
IFLScience, National Geographic, Food Babe, The Doctor Oz Show, etc.), be either amplified to
benefit lay audiences with a premise set in everyday context ; or, skewed to appeal to5
popularity subjecting audiences to their own confirmation biases. Noting that the tricky6
process of science communication demands a balance between attracting viewership and
scientific accuracy (Gregory & Miller, 1998), it explains the inclination that content
producers have towards the former as they may not be formally trained to interpret
scientific texts.
Further, producers could be motivated by the prospect of generating maximum
profit from a non-scientist audience, thus, leaving the domain of science communication
(overtly or discreetly) to enter science commodiBication. In the book, The CommodiBication of
Academic Research: Science and the Modern University, Hans Radder (2010) defines science
commodification as the transformation of scientific knowledge into objects of economic
trade and value (ibid., p.4). The goal of science commodification is to generate profit using
the name of ‘science’ regardless of its contribution to science or scientists (ibid.), which is
crucially different from the goals of science communication. In this sense, science is being
treated as a brand rather than an academic discipline by the cultural industries. Examples
of science commodification are plenty, including an exhaustive list of everyday products for
wellness (e.g., shiatsu massage chairs, anti-bacterial toothpaste, memory foam
mattresses), beauty (e.g., hydrating technology, green tea extract, whitening formula), and
nutrition (e.g., 100% organic, gluten-free, low-carb, high protein); household equipment
(e.g., anti-fungal furniture, ionised air-conditioning, what kills 99.9% bacteria); apparels
and gear (e.g., orthopaedic footwear, titanium rackets), etcetera. Examples of science
commodification in the media are science-fiction films including Star Wars and Avatar;
advertisements; documentaries; talk shows like The Doctor Oz Show; and books like The
Food Babe Way — all of which have produced science-related content for profit.
To discuss scientific discoveries in more digestible forms, usually following headlines like, ‘Here’s 5
what you need to know about vaccination and autism’ or ‘Why is sleep important to improve your
memory’.
To sensationalise science-related content, usually using buzz words like, ‘cure’, ‘organic’,6
‘technology’, or phrases, ‘science still can’t explain…’, ‘scientists were wrong…’, ‘industry-funded
science’, etcetera.
of10 28

The notion that science is the engine of prosperity is still largely accepted by the
public (ibid.). Because of that, products marketed with a ‘scientific’ component in them
tend to be perceived as revolutionary or highly developed (ibid.), and leveraging on the
latest scientific buzzwords to sell one’s product is mainly a promotional and marketing
strategy with little to do with science (ibid.). Increasing the desirability of science-related
content/products furthermore, as Horkheimer and Adorno (1979) highlighted about cultural
industries, is that the audience/consumer takes significant pleasure from cultural industries
and will pay attention/money for the products it proposes with negligible resistance even if
they become aware of being manipulated. To quote Horkheimer and Adorno (ibid., pp.
167), “The triumph of advertising in the culture industry is that consumers feel compelled to buy
and use its products even though they see through them”. Some productions of science-
related content are overtly profit-driven and overtly fictional (e.g., science-fiction films)
where the audience/consumer are not expected to believe its message wholesale, hence,
the audience/consumer understands that any paid attention or money by them is an
exchange for entertainment. However, other productions of science-related content are
more discreet about generating profit (e.g., The Doctor Oz Show, and The Food Babe Way)7
and creates ‘informative’ content where the audience/consumer are expected to believe its
message, hence, the audience/consumer presumes that paying attention or money to
such content is an exchange for facts, real science or premium information of some sort.
This effect on the audience/consumer is in line with the two step flow model, because said
science-related content producers were able to package themselves as the opinion leader
for decoding scientific texts to an audience. Whether opinion leaders get science right or
wrong depends on their social conscience , and through them, the non-scientist audience8
may never know what they did not know about science.
The uses and gratiBication model differs from the aforementioned models in that it
studies what the audience do with the media instead of what the media can do to the
audience (Blumler & Katz, 1974). It posits an audience actively making use of the media
to fulfil a range of purposes, including the desire for information, social connection, and
entertainment (ibid.). This model changes the perspective on power distribution, that
Both have publicly denied that their content is profit-driven and bogus, but have been referred by7
doctors and scientists as media charlatans (Vox, 2016; Rubin, 2015).
The next chapter discusses the approach that science communicators ought to take in order to8
bridge the gap between science and the public.
of11 28

significant amount of it lies with the audience and not with the producers (ibid.), because
the active audience selects the media they want to consume and does so in relation to
their needs, rather than simply accepting whatever is presented to them (ibid.). As well,
this approach takes into account the audience’s personalities, where different individuals
will find their needs satisfied by different types of media. Hence, suggesting that media
producers are obliged to create varied content to satisfy a heterogeneous audience. This
is evident in the wide range of media genres, channels, stories, and content available to
date. One way which reflects the uses and gratification’s description of the modern-day
selective audience is through the subscription rates on YouTube. The following table
shows the top versus the least subscribed channels on YouTube in year 2016 .9
Table 1: Subscription rates of YouTube channels in 2016
Table 1 shows that, ‘comedy’ and ‘film and entertainment’ genres are amongst the
top trimestrial (33.3 per cent) of YouTube channels with 26 million out of 48 million
estimated total subscribers, representing 54 per cent of total subscribers from around the
world (Youtube, 2016b). While ‘science and education’ and ‘news and politics’ channels
Channel Estimated number of subscribers
Comedy 22 million
Gaming 7 million
Sports 5 million
Film and Entertainment 4 million
Beauty and Fashion 2 million
Animation 2 million
Tech 2 million
Music 1 million
Cooking and Health 1 million
Science and Education 1 million
News and Politics 1 million
Automative 475 thousand
Information obtained from: https://www.youtube.com/channels9
of12 28

are, to a large extent, less popular amongst the total subscribers from around the world
with an estimated difference of 24 million subscribers compared to ‘comedy’ and ‘film and
entertainment’ (ibid.). This stark difference in number represents a dichotomy between
entertainment and informative content regarding the general preference that the world
audience have, that is entertainment (ibid.), hence the number of subscribers to its
channels (ibid.).
According to Blumler and Katz (1975), individuals may choose to consume a media
for four main uses: diversion, interpersonal relationships, personal identity, and surveillance.
‘Diversion’ refers to individuals who selects a media to relax and unwind from their daily
routine, stresses or boredom (ibid.). They also seek entertainment or drama genres for
emotional release, filling time, alongside getting cultural and aesthetic enjoyment (ibid.).
‘Interpersonal relationships’ refers to the audience’s selection of a particular media to carry
out social roles and interaction (ibid.). For example, watching movies and television
together with one’s in-group; using gaming channels to make friends; using Facebook to
gain insight into the circumstances of others; and using YouTube videos to teach a class.
‘Personal identity’ refers to a fundamental component of the human condition — the need
to define oneself (ibid.). Hence, the audience might use a preferred media channel to
reinforce personal values, learn about social norms, and use social networking sites like
Facebook and YouTube to ascribe themselves to a particular social group (a parallel of
‘personal identity’ was drawn in previous paragraphs discussing the ‘hypodermic needle
effect’ and ‘groupthink’; this passage cements the notion that humans are social beings
who use the media to locate themselves and others). ‘Surveillance’ refers to the need for
information to perform certain tasks (e.g., a student using research databases to write an
assignment), to understand the world (e.g., using the Internet), and to satisfy one’s
curiosities and general interests (e.g., clicking on science-related content, cooking videos,
political news, etc.).
Amongst the available YouTube channels shown in Table 1, ‘comedy’ as well as ‘film
and entertainment’ intrinsically offers the entertainment value sought by the audience
described by Blumler and Katz (1975), with at least 54 per cent of subscribers (Youtube,
2016b), indicating that majority of the world audience are escapist in character. YouTube is
host to over 1 billion users worldwide, and every day its audience watch hundreds of
of13 28

millions of hours and generate billions of views (Youtube, 2016a). These counterintuitively
suggest that scientific content should offer more entertainment value in order to maximise
its outreach to the public, considering ‘science and education’ channels are currently
amongst the least popular media with the world audience.
Moreover, the fact that 22 million people have subscribed to ‘comedy’ channels on
YouTube alone shows that seeking entertainment is an innate quality about human beings;
even in the non-media context, people naturally aspire to perform on stage, crack jokes
with friends, and tell stories. In fact, storytelling began since the dawn of mankind, which
anthropologists believe has an evolutionary link to humans’ ability to speak. To borrow a
quote from the book, The Irresistible Fairy Tale: The Cultural and Social History of a Genre,
author Jack Zipes (2012, pp.2) wrote, “Though it is impossible to trace the historical origins
and evolution of fairy tales to a particular time and place, we do know that humans began telling
tales as soon as they developed the capacity of speech. They may have even used sign language
before speech originated to communicate vital information for adapting to their environment.”
Although the onset of storytelling and human speech is a chicken-and-egg question, the
development of numerous languages and symbols in the world, as well as the evolution of
media semiotics in advertisements to date, indubitably indicates the human desire to
convey emotionally-charged, contextual messages to each other. This is a common area
of weakness in science communication, because it can be particularly challenging for the
lay audience to decode scientific texts when they cannot see how it relates to everyday
life. On the other hand, it is inconvenient for scientists to relay objective data to the public
in the form of a story, because they are obstinately accustomed to encode and decode
scientific texts.
4. The Salient Role of Science Communicators
This chapter negotiates the power audiences have in determining content production with
non-profit driven producers who work to make accurate science content inviting for the
public to consume, thus, appealing to the notion of an interdependent relationship between
producers and audiences.
Past academic studies of science communication assume a two-party relationship
of14 28

— scientists and non-scientists — where scientific messages were disseminated in top-
down fashion from the scientists to the public (Gregory & Miller, 1998). However, the
assumptions that developed this communication model correspond to those in the
hypodermic needle model, which viewed the audience as highly docile. Later,
communication researchers address the many limitations of using linear communication
models in studying science communication, as increasing evidence suggest that
audiences significantly prefer to use the media for their pleasure and convenience (Olson,
2009; as aforementioned in Table 1), and would easily oppose intense scientific content as
they perceive it to add little value to, or even subtract from, their personal lives (ibid.). This
cements the notion of ‘diversion’ posited by Blumler and Katz (1975). Today, the study of
science communication considers how the Internet has revolutionised information
production, consumption, and dissemination; substituting past purist perspectives with
recognition for a third party, the science communicators, particularly those who use social
media channels (Olson, 2009). Examples of established science communicators include:
Elise Andrew, famous British blogger for social media channel IFLScience; Neil deGrasse
Tyson, astrophysicist, author and blogger for Neil deGrasse Tyson; Hank Green, musician
and founder of YouTube channel SciShow; and Michael Stevens, video producer and
founder of YouTube channels Vsauce, Vsauce2 and Vsauce3, which he designed to offer
content that shifts between scientific intensity and gaming entertainment across the three
channels. In general, science communicators also include presenters from traditional
mass media such as David Attenborough and the late Steve Irwin, who leveraged on their
celebrity and nationality to rally national support for wildlife conservation. Both types of
science communicators serve as everyday gatekeepers between science and the public,
whilst working towards the goals of science communication.
Science communicators play an important role in how the public would respond to
science, scientists, and scientific texts. However, good science communicators coexist
with bad science communicators; as examined in the previous chapter on opinion leaders,
suggesting to some extent audiences are still at the mercy of media producers when it
comes to understanding science beyond the classroom, because science can be extra
counterintuitive and difficult to grasp (e.g., ‘Is evolution real?’, ‘Are chemicals and genetically
modiBied foods safe for consumption?’, ‘How can global warming be real when winters are
getting colder in some places?’, etc.). By an expert use of content packaging, media
of15 28

channels, and communication styles; science communicators create the difference
between a positive and negative reaction in the public (ibid.). The following examines
some performances from three science communicators using the concepts conceived by
Jennifer Briselli (2013), in her masters thesis, Demanufacturing Doubt: A Design Strategy for
Science Communication.
Jennifer Briselli (2013, pp.59-60) designed a framework for how science
communication can be more effective based on research done for social sciences, classic
rhetoric, and communication studies. It reflects a multifaceted understanding science
communicators ought to have; including the ability to explain, interpret, apply, gain
perspective, empathise, and possess self-knowledge (ibid.). As well, Briselli’s framework
is an expansion of the ethos, pathos, and logos model used in the study of persuasive
communication, where she applies the appeals to credibility, emotion, and logic in a
modern context (ibid.). Coined as The Design Strategy for Science Communication
framework, it contains the following six components (ibid.): (i) self-reBlection, which is the
science communicators’ understanding of how their personal values influence their
communication; (ii) empathy, which is the understanding of how people’s values influence
their perception; (iii) identity afBirmation, which is the designing of information to appeal to
each group of people; (iv) non-threatening messaging, which emphasises framing
information in non-alienating and non-judgmental language; (v) pluralistic advocacy, which
is the use of multiple worldviews to build a conclusion; and (vi) emotional resonance, which
is the use of relevant metaphors and storytelling to create meaning for the audience.
Borrowing the above concepts while excluding self-reBlection and empathy (these cannot be
falsified), the following evaluates three science communicators and their performances.
of16 28

Table 2: Performances of Neil deGrasse Tyson
Table 2 shows three Twitter postings made by prominent science communicator,
Neil deGrasse Tyson. In Quote 1, Tyson used a derogatory tone in his statement against
political and religious groups, implying such people as inferior to scientists. In Quote 2,
Tyson brought his insult to the world audience, implying that humans are unworthy. In
Quote 3, Tyson undermined the enthusiasm of an interest group that is potentially valuable
to science and scientists in generating public support for space exploration and research.
In these three Twitter postings, Tyson had failed to achieve Briselli’s (2013, pp.60) identity
afBirmation, because his messages were offensive to numerous social groups which also
form a large population of the public. As well, Tyson failed to observe Briselli’s non-
threatening messaging by passing critical judgments on said groups. Based on Table 2,
Tyson did not score as a good science communicator. His performances were socially
divisive ﬁtting the description of Group Polarisation (Weaver, 2007), and could potentially be
feeding into this phenomenon, which works against the goals of science communication.
In the world of Web 2.0, any content that is generated by the user stays online for an
unlimited period of time, hence, even if the user deletes the offensive postings from their
accounts, other members from the world audience might be disseminating a recording of it
to continue its damage. 
Quoted from Twitter account, @neiltyson
Neil deGrasse Tyson
Quote 1:
“Anytime scientists disagree, it’s because we have insufBicient data. Then we
can agree on what kind of data to get; we get the data; and the data solves
the problem. Either I’m right or you’re right, or we’re both wrong. And we
move on. That kind of conBlict resolution does not exist in politics or religion.” 
Source: http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/n/neil_degrasse_tyson.html
Quote 2:
“Perhaps we’ve never been visited by aliens because they have looked upon
Earth and decided there's no sign of intelligent life.” 
Quote 3:
“Space enthusiasts are the most susceptible demographic to delusion that I
have ever seen.” 
of17 28

Table 3: Performances of SciShow (Hank Green)
Table 3 contains two YouTube links to ‘science and education’ channel, SciShow. In
Video 1, Hank Green interviews Rebecca Durham on an esoteric topic of biocrust, with
guest appearance Jessi Knudsen who works in wildlife conservation. Green had partly
observed Briselli’s (2013, pp.60) non-threatening messaging by conducting the interview in
a non-judgmental language for audiences who may not be animal lovers. However, the
topic of biocrust is too alienating for many who may not even have heard that term before,
and should not have appeared in the video title. Although Green was working towards the
goals of science communication, Video 1 is considerably more informative than
entertaining, and may explain the low number of views (98 thousand) it achieved
compared to Video 2. Video 1 creates an impression of boredom in most audiences with an
indirect mode of address, and does not appeal to the majority on YouTube who is interested
in using it for entertainment as examined in the previous chapter. In Video 2 (188 thousand
views), Green presents the methods for reversing the effects of pollution on oceans.
Green achieved Briselli’s (ibid.) non-threatening messaging by using simple language for a
large audience who might not understand the complexities involved in cleaning oceans.
For example, at 3:49 minutes, Green expressed using plain words, “No matter how we do it,
cleaning up the oceans will be hard.” Also, by using “we” in that statement and in the video
title, Green is including the world audience to heed his message on environmentalism and
is not being socially divisive like the Twitter postings made by Neil deGrasse Tyson.
Despite using a direct mode of address (Green faced and looked into the camera directly)
to convey seriousness, Green remained non-judgmental towards the world audience and
balances his seriousness with an informal presentation style. Overall, Video 2 is in line with
the goals of science communication to enable informed decision-making and to address
misinformation to the public, albeit lacking in entertainment value.
Performances
SciShow
Video 1: Biocrust with Rebecca Durham
 
Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PIEg-Ei_BCM
Video 2: How Can We Clean Up the Oceans?
Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7i8pjnjZcF8
of18 28

Table 4: Performances of Vsauce (Michael Stevens)
Table 4 contains two links to the popular YouTube channel, Vsauce. In Video 1,
Michael Stevens explores the trending fringe belief of a flat Earth. Stevens consistently
scored for Briselli’s (ibid.) non-threatening messaging by using a language that is witty and
conversational, suiting all audiences. Stevens also achieved Briselli’s (ibid.) identity
afBirmation, by appealing to both the flat-earth and round-earth believers, as seen right at
the beginning of the video, when mentioned that scientists have measured and discovered
that the state of Kanas is literally flatter than a pancake. In a non-judgmental manner,
between 0:24 to 1:51 minutes, Stevens used a computer-generated animation to
mathematically simulate how navigation on a flat Earth would turn out, thus giving flat-
earth believers an opportunity to consume science despite their beliefs. Between 2:00 to
2:12 minutes, Stevens appealed to the round-earth believers by illustrating how a sphere
is the most energy-efficient configuration and hence the earth must be round — a
digestible piece of information that even round-earth believers may not know about. While
he explains that a flat earth would require tremendous amounts of energy to hold itself
together in that form, as subtly as he can to address the misinformation in the flat-earth
belief. Stevens also provided Briselli’s (ibid.) emotional resonance, using a parable at 9:31
minutes to create deeper meaning than simply the Earth being flat or round, where he
said, “Our knowledge about the outside world might be the same. A puzzle with no answer key,
just the reassurance that the answers we think we know Bit together, so they’re probably correct”
suggesting that both flat-earth and round-earth believers should question their
preconceived notions and challenge popular opinion. This is critically in line with the goal
of science communication to generate more informed thought processes in people.
Instead of concluding his video with the obvious truth, Stevens gave a conclusion that is
applicable to all people from all walks of life when he said at 10:05 minutes, “Some people
say, ‘How can you live without knowing?’ I do not know what they mean. I always live without
knowing — that is easy. How you get to know is what I want to know”, thus achieving Briselli’s
Performances
Vsauce
Video 1: Is Earth Actually Flat?
Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VNqNnUJVcVs
Video 2: Math Magic
Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ObiqJzfyACM
of19 28

(ibid.) pluralistic advocacy as well.
In Video 2, Stevens explores the seemingly magical appearance of coincidences
through probability. Similarly, Stevens’s use of language is easy to understand, non-
judgmental, and filled with humour, scoring Briselli’s (ibid.) standard of non-threatening
messaging. From the very first instant, Stevens catches the attention of the scientific and
non-scientific audience with the video titled, “Math Magic”, suggesting both mathematics
and magic are performed in the video, which it did. The audience were not disappointed.
Between 0:54 minutes and 1:35 minutes, Stevens creatively engages the audience by
asking them to actively participate in his magic trick, appealing to the reality of an active
audience. By doing so, Stevens is giving audiences their entertainment value right at the
beginning, which is critical to retain their attention for the rest of the video. In what
seemed to be a failed magic trick, Stevens jokingly pointed out that seven members of the
audience would probably thought the trick worked; slyly beginning to explain the
mathematics behind. At 2:23 minutes in, Stevens referenced an actual research paper to
reveal an interesting statistic about what poker cards most people tend to think of when
they get asked during a magic trick. At 2:38 minutes, Stevens quickly switched back to
saying something intriguing, “But would it be more amazing if it actually was magic? Yes and
no…” At this point, Stevens has appealed to both scientific and non-scientific audiences,
thus achieving Briselli’s (ibid.) notion of identity afBirmation. By the end of the video,
Stevens achieved both Briselli’s (ibid.) emotional resonance and pluralistic advocacy when
he said at 18:16 minutes, “That is how big 52 factorial is… But now think about the number of
possible people, the number of different humans there could be is even larger. What that means
is that even though you would probably die, most people, including the smartest or the funniest,
or most annoying won’t even get to die like you do — they won’t even get to be born. So, I’m glad
you’re here” giving a conclusion that is both emotionally-charged and applicable to anyone.
Based on Table 4, Stevens had achieved all of Briselli’s (ibid.) components for
effective science communication. As well, Stevens was able to find a balance between
maintaining scientific accuracy and attracting viewership (10 million views for Video 1, and
4 million views for Video 2), while giving his audience plenty of entertainment value and
relating scientific texts to everyday life, appealing even to the most unscientific of
audiences (flat-earth believers). Amongst the three science communicators discussed in
of20 28

this chapter, Michael Stevens scored for the best type of science communicator, followed
by Hank Green, followed by Neil deGrasse Tyson, in descending order. Once again, this
shows that the tricky process of science communication can be executed excellently,
however, it depends on having the right science communicator.
5. A New Media For A New Audience 
Traditionally, science is communicated to the public through the manuscripts and books
(reaching mainly to experts), and television and radio (to the masses). Although most
manuscripts and books have been made available online and accessible to the public,
these materials still do not reach the general public well because they are not appealing to
the audiences’ needs, as discussed in the previous chapters. First introduced by
Abercrombie and Longhurst (1998), the diffused audience is the twenty-first century
audience who is connected to electronic mediums in every aspect of private, social and
working life. In private, the user may do banking transactions or watch videos online. The
diffused audience may also seek social interaction through gaming and social media
channels, or use emails and search engines for work. There are three basic features for
any social media, including YouTube and Facebook: (i) constructing a profile, (ii)
generating a list of contacts, and (iii) being able to interact with members from those listed
in their contacts or found within the social media network. According to Meikle and Young
(2012, pp.65-68), social media epitomises the characteristics of Web 2.0. Web 2.0
describes the rise of a participatory culture (e.g., commenting, liking, re-blogging) that
encourages user-generated content including (blogging, status updates, intellectual
property), sharing of images, videos and music, and collaboration amongst online users
(communities who share the same interests).
This level of connectivity (i.e., social networking sites) can serve the two groups of
people engaging in science communication well. In particular, experts would be able to
promote their professional profiles, form a network with journalists, reach new audiences,
recruit prospective students, act as a public voice for science, make their research
accessible, create outreach and funding opportunities, as well as open the doors for future
collaboration. And laypeople can benefit from having background scientific knowledge to
issues that directly impact their quality of life and society or workplace. Social networking
of21 28

sites including slideshare.net, academia.edu, and reddit.com/r/askscience have adapted to let
avid users consult directly with scientists of different fields, and share relevant research
papers or supplementary materials. To add, there are many science channels on social
media that all contribute to this science database — blogs, videos, wikis and forums. This
provides an opportunity for anyone on the planet with internet access to gather scientific
information that cannot be found in traditional media nor are available in the immediate
offline environment. Those connected online using a smartphone or tablet may access
scientific information while on the move as well, enabling learning to take place at more
places and times. By broadcasting research results to a wider audience and leveraging on
participatory culture of social media, it also counteracts scientific misinformation (Pasquali,
2007). Now more people are able to participate in science unlike before. For example, in
the field of astrophysics, the task of classifying over a million galaxies from photos taken
by robotic telescopes is overwhelming to say the least. Fortunately, the collaboration of
thousands of online volunteers have helped to sieve through petabytes of data, and
discovered something new which astronomers themselves have missed all along. The
group of volunteers noticed that in the background of an image there were certain peculiar
green round objects. A few hundred of those volunteers came forward to ask the scientists
what those were. The scientists investigated the green objects, and later found out that
they were galaxies undergoing a dramatic burst of star formation. These were the most
efficient makers of stars anywhere in the local universe and yet had been missed by
professional astronomers. It was only thanks to the help of a quarter-million people at their
own chairs and their internet connections that the discovery had been made. Galaxy Zoo is
just one of many other host projects inviting the public to get involved in science. More
collaborations like these can helped science progress faster into the future.
Of all media technologies, video hosting sites provide the best platform for
laypeople to gain the awareness and background understanding of science-related topics.
This is because of information on the video can be conveyed in the least static way to help
construct a better understanding for the audience. Research have shown that concurrent
use of visual and auditory information channels (i.e., the video) greatly increase the
knowledge being retained by a viewer (Darzentas et al., 2007, pp.886), including
illustrations, infographics, animation, sounds and voiceovers. As well, content can be
scripted to include interesting narratives that makes static information more relatable and
of22 28

applicable to everyday life (which helps information to be absorbed faster), and content
can be presented by a likeable, charismatic presenter (which helps to make a topic more
interesting).
6. Conclusion
 
Science communication is a vital process of information sharing today. Once individuals
leave their schools, the media are their main channels for being informed about scientific
advances and discoveries, particularly in the current context of rapid scientific change.
Science communication can be a powerful social force that amends laws and policies to
reflect the values and ethics of an institution, society or country (as discussed in Chapter
2.2). For most people, the reality of science is what they read in the media. While some
consumers use the media for trivial purposes, others use it to locate themselves and
others, and define their sense of self in a social context larger than the immediate family,
forming group identities through the media. As discussed in Chapter 3, when two or more
groups try too hard to validate their values and ‘versions’ of what is true, they may trigger a
group polarisation effect. Group polarisation has been identified in the climate-change
deniers (in Chapter 2), as well as in Neil deGrasse Tyson’s (in Chapter 4), where both
adopted more extreme stances in their views while increasing distance from those who do
not share the same values as them. This is particularly concerning as scientists and the
public should be working towards a closer communication relationship. This can be
intervened by science communicators.
However, just like the game of Chinese Whispers, in which a message gets distorted
after passing it down through different parties between the source and end receiver, the
public do not consume pure science from science communicators. While scientists
themselves are not necessarily in the best position to communicate scientific texts to the
lay public, for they may lack training in public communication and understanding of how
the mass media works. To make matters worse, media charlatans in the guise of opinion
leaders for science can feed the public with false information, working against the goals of
science communication. These profit-driven producers exists because the lay audience
grants them the power to produce bogus informative content. The lay audience may never
know that the content is bogus, or they may choose to reject contrarian viewpoints due to
of23 28

the effect of groupthink (as discussed in Chapter 3). Rather than using more informative
content to change the views of the public, which may feed into group polarisation, this
paper has found the entertainment genre to be least socially destructive yet the most
preferred genre amongst the world audience (shown in Table 1). Hence, the need for
more entertainment value in science content.
However, good science communicators are hard to come by, as Chapter 4 shows,
Vsauce (Michael Stevens) was the only one who could offer both high entertainment value
and scientific accuracy in both performances. Even when SciShow (Hank Green)
performed well for scientific accuracy, he lacked in entertainment value. Although in
Chapter 3, the audience appears to be in control of determining what content gets
produced, as how they are capable of driving Food Babe, The Dr Oz Show, and the
significantly high subscription rates for entertainment content on YouTube; the real work
comes from the science communicators who must develop a multifaceted understanding
of how to make science entertaining (as discussed in Chapter 4). The audience wants
something which they can relate to that also entertains and interests them (as discussed in
Chapter 4). But the critical role of science communicators demands the use of accurate
science; hence, they must develop the intelligence and creative skills necessary to satisfy
both the public and scientists, while working towards the goals of science communication
at the same time. Science communicators are put in a tight position to attract viewership
while maintaining scientific integrity in the content they produce, but they continue to find
ways to achieve both things, hence are also cultural intermediaries. However, they must
remember that science communication is public communication where the feedback of the
audience matters. It is vastly different from science education, which is an academic
discipline. The world audience desires entertainment, as proven in Chapters 3 and 4
because humans naturally seek it, and can get intimate with this genre the best, to calm
their bored, lonely, stressed, and overworked minds.
 
of24 28

Bibliography
Abercrombie, N. and Longhurst, B. (1998). Audiences. London: Sage
Anderegg, W., Prall, J., Harold, J. and Schneider, S. (2010). Expert credibility in climate change. Proceedings
of the National Academy of Sciences, [online] 107(27), pp.12107-12109. Available at: http://
www.pnas.org/content/107/27/12107.full.pdf [Accessed 10 Jan. 2016].
Benestad, R., Nuccitelli, D., Lewandowsky, S., Hayhoe, K., Hygen, H., van Dorland, R. and Cook, J. (2015).
Learning from mistakes in climate research. Theoretical and Applied Climatology. [online] Available at:
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00704-015-1597-5 [Accessed 5 Jan. 2016].
Benneworth, P. (2009). The challenges for 21st century science — a review of the evidence base surrounding
the value of public engagement by scientists. Center for Higher Education Policy Studies. [online]
Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/
242684824_The_challenges_for_21_st_century_science_A_review_of_the_evidence_base_surrounding_t
he_value_of_public_engagement_by_scientists [Accessed 6 Feb. 2016].
Bloom, S. (2015). Improving School and Community Outcomes For Children and Adolescents with
Emotional and Behavioral Challenges. A Principal’s Guidebook: School-based Mental Health Programs.
[online] Available at: https://www.omh.ny.gov/omhweb/Childservice/docs/school-based-mhservices.pdf
[Accessed 12 Jan. 2016].
Blumler, J. and Katz, E. (1974). The Uses of Mass Communication. Newbury Park: Sage.
BrainyQuote. (2016). Neil deGrasse Tyson Quotes at BrainyQuote. [online] Available at: http://
www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/n/neil_degrasse_tyson.html [Accessed 6 Jun. 2016].
Briselli, J. (2016). Demanufacturing Doubt: A Design Strategy for Science Communication. Master's Degree.
Carnegie Mellon University. [online] Available at: http://repository.cmu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?
article=1040&context=theses. [Accessed 7 Jun. 2016].
Carlson, D. (2002). Acceptance of Homosexuality: A Youth Movement. [online] Gallup.com. Available at:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/5341/acceptance-homosexuality-youth-movement.aspx [Accessed 12 Jan.
2016].
Carr, C. and Hayes, R. (2015). Social Media: Defining, Developing, and Divining. Atlantic Journal of
Communication, [online] 23(1). Available at: http://my.ilstu.edu/~ctcarr/research/CarrHayes_2015.pdf
Cosce.org, (2015). Science and Society. [online] Available at: http://www.cosce.org/crece5_ingles.htm
[Accessed 31 Dec. 2015].
Couldry, N. (2005). The Extended Audience: Scanning the Horizon. Media Audiences. Maidenhead: Open
University Press.
Darzentas, N., Goldovsky, L., Ouzounis, C., Karapiperis, K. and Karapiperis, C. (2007). Science
communication media for scientists and the public. EMBO Reports, 8(10).
Durkin, M. (2007). The Great Global Warming Swindle. [video] Available at: https://www.youtube.com/
of25 28

watch?v=D-m09lKtYT4 [Accessed 5 Jan. 2016].
Ens-newswire.com, (2013). India Bans Captive Dolphin Shows as Morally Unacceptable. [online] Available at:
http://ens-newswire.com/2013/05/20/india-bans-captive-dolphin-shows-as-morally-unacceptable/
Esrl.noaa.gov, (2016). Global Greenhouse Gas Reference Network. [online] Available at: http://
www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/global.html [Accessed 22 Feb. 2016].
Farrell, J. (2015). Network structure and influence of the climate change counter-movement. Nature Climate
Change.
Fnal.gov, (2014). The science of matter, space and time. [online] Available at: http://www.fnal.gov/pub/
science/inquiring/matter/ [Accessed 5 Jan. 2016].
forskning.no, (2016). forskning.no. [online] Available at: http://forskning.no/ [Accessed 5 Jan. 2016].
Friis-Christensen, E. and Lassen, K. (1991). Length of the Solar Cycle: An Indicator of Solar Activity Closely
Associated with Climate. Science, 254(5032), pp.698-700.
Garvey, W. (1979). Communication, the essence of science. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Gerbner, G., Morgan, M., Signorielli, N. & Shanahan, J. (2002). Growing Up with Television: Cultivation
Processes. Media Effects: Advances in Theory and Research, 2nd ed., ed. Jennings Bryant and Dolf
Zillmann. New Jersey: Erlbaum.
Gregory, J. and Miller, S. (2000). Science In Public. 2nd ed. New York: Basic Books.
Hajdu, S. (2007). A Note from History: Persecution of Noted Physicians and Medical Scientists. Annals of
Clinical & Laboratory Science, [online] 37(3), pp.295-297. Available at: http://www.annclinlabsci.org/
content/37/3/295.full.pdf+html [Accessed 5 Jan. 2016].
Horkheimer, M. & Adorno, T. (1979). Dialectic of Enlightenment. New York: Herder and Herder.
Jenkins, H. (2006). Convergence Culture. New York: New York University Press.
Katz, E. & Lazarsfeld, P. (1955). Personal Influence. New York: The Free Press.
Klimarealistene.com, (2016). Naturen. [online] Available at: http://www.klimarealistene.com/Naturen
Krauss, L. (2015). What Einstein Got Wrong. Scientific American, (Volume 313, Issue 3). [online] Available at:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-einstein-got-wrong/ [Accessed 5 Jan. 2016].
Marsh, N. and Svensmark, H. (2000). Low Cloud Properties Influenced by Cosmic Rays. Phys. Rev. Lett.,
85(23), pp.5004-5007.
Miskolczi, F. (2010). The stable stationary value of the earth's global average atmospheric Planck-weighted
greenhouse-gas optical thickness. Energy & Environment, [online] 21(4), pp.243-262. Available at: http://
www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/E&E_21_4_2010_08-miskolczi.pdf [Accessed 5 Jan. 2016].
of26 28

Mortensen, L. and Svensmark, S. (2008). The Cloud Mystery. [video] Available at: https://www.youtube.com/
watch?v=ANMTPF1blpQ [Accessed 5 Jan. 2016].
Olson, R. (2009). Don't be such a scientist. Washington: Island Press.
Oxford Academic English. (2016). Science. [online] Available at: http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/
definition/english/science [Accessed 1 Jan. 2016].
Pasquali, M. (2007). Video in science. Protocol videos: the implications for research and society. EMBO Rep,
8, pp.712-716.
Radder, H. (2010). The Commodification of Academic Research: Science and the Modern University.
University of Pittsburgh Press.
Rahmstorf, S. (2012). Is journalism failing on climate?. Environ. Res. Lett., [online] 7(4), pp.1-3. Available at:
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/7/4/041003/pdf [Accessed 5 Jan. 2016].
Ramsey, L. (2015). Here's the critical reason Bill Nye the Science Guy changed his mind on GMOs. [online]
Business Insider. Available at: http://www.businessinsider.sg/bill-nye-explains-his-stance-on-
gmos-2015-7/?r=US&IR=T [Accessed 5 Jan. 2016].
Rennie, J. (2009). Seven Answers to Climate Contrarian Nonsense. [online] Scientific American. Available at:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/seven-answers-to-climate-contrarian-nonsense/ [Accessed 5
Jan. 2016].
Richardson, T., Morrissette, M. and Zucker, L. (2012). School-Based Adolescent Mental Health Programs.
Social Work Today, [online] 12(6). Available at: http://www.socialworktoday.com/archive/
111312p24.shtml [Accessed 13 Jan. 2016].
Roston, E. (2015). Unearthing America's Deep Network of Climate Change Deniers. [online]
Bloomberg.com. Available at: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-11-30/unearthing-
america-s-deep-network-of-climate-change-deniers [Accessed 5 Jan. 2016].
Rubin, C. (2015). Taking On the Food Industry, One Blog Post at a Time. [online] Nytimes.com. Available at:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/15/style/taking-on-the-food-industry-one-blog-post-at-a-time.html
[Accessed 6 Jun. 2016].
Science for All (2010a). Report and action plan from the Science for All Expert Group. [online] Department
for Business, Innovation and Skills. Available at: http://interactive.bis.gov.uk/scienceandsociety/site/
all/files/2010/02/Science-forAll-Final-Report-WEB.pdf [Accessed 5 Jan. 2016].
Science for All (2010b). Public Engagement with Science and Society – a conversational tool. [online]
Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. Available at: http://interactive.bis.gov.uk/
scienceandsociety/site/all/2010/09/23/publicengagement-for-science-and-society-a-conversational-tool/.
SciShow, (2016a). How Can We Clean Up the Oceans?. [video] Available at: https://www.youtube.com/
watch?v=7i8pjnjZcF8 [Accessed 6 Jun. 2016].
of27 28

SciShow, (2016b). SciShow Talk Show: Biocrust with Rebecca Durham. [video] Available at: https://
www.youtube.com/watch?v=PIEg-Ei_BCM [Accessed 5 Jun. 2016].
Shaviv, N. (2002). Cosmic Ray Diffusion from the Galactic Spiral Arms, Iron Meteorites, and a Possible
Climatic Connection. Phys. Rev. Lett., 89(5).
Solheim, J. (2012). En kommentar til ”Når akademikere villeder om klimaendringer” i Utdanning nr. 15/2012
- Utdanningsnytt. [online] Utdanningsnytt. Available at: http://utdanningsnytt.no/debatt/2012/oktober/
en-kommentar-til-nar-akademikere-villeder-om-klimaendringer-i-utdanning-nr.-152012-/ [Accessed 5 Jan.
2016].
Statista, (2016). Internet users number 2005-2015. Statistic. [online] Available at: http://www.statista.com/
statistics/273018/number-of-internet-users-worldwide/ [Accessed 16 Jan. 2016].
Sullivan, W. (1986). Is There A Past In The Future?. The New York Times. [online] Available at: http://
www.nytimes.com/1986/12/30/science/is-there-a-past-in-the-future.html?pagewanted=1 [Accessed 5
Jan. 2016].
Svensmark, H. (1998). Influence of Cosmic Rays on Earth's Climate. Phys. Rev. Lett., 81(22), pp.5027-5030.
Vox, F. (2016). Who's really harmed by Dr. Oz. [online] CNN. Available at: http://edition.cnn.com/
2015/04/27/opinions/vox-dr-oz-critics/ [Accessed 6 Jun. 2016].
Vanderbilt, T. (2016). The Psychology of Genre. [online] Nytimes.com. Available at: http://
www.nytimes.com/2016/05/29/opinion/sunday/the-psychology-of-genre.html?smid=fb-
nytscience&smtyp=cur&_r=0 [Accessed 9 Jun. 2016].
Vsauce, (2014). Is Earth Actually Flat?. [video] Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=VNqNnUJVcVs [Accessed 6 Jun. 2016].
Vsauce, (2016). Math Magic. [video] Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ObiqJzfyACM
[Accessed 6 Jun. 2016].
Weaver, K. (2007). Inferring the popularity of an opinion from its familiarity: A repetitive voice can sound like
a chorus. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(5), pp.821-833.
White, R. (2012). Climate change from a criminological perspective. New York: Springer, p.49.
Youtube.com. (2016a). Statistics - YouTube. [online] Available at: https://www.youtube.com/yt/press/
statistics.html [Accessed 8 Jun. 2016].
Youtube.com. (2016b). YouTube. [online] Available at: https://www.youtube.com/channels [Accessed 8 Jun.
2016].
Zipes, J. (2012). The Irresistible Fairy Tale: The Cultural and Social History of a Genre. Princeton: Princeton
University Press.
of28 28

MP0605 (R)

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (12)

Similar to MP0605 (R)

Similar to MP0605 (R) (20)

MP0605 (R)