Examining the Impact of Expert Voices: Communicating the Scientific Consensus on Genetically-modified Organisms

References

• Agre et al. (2016). Laureates letter supporting precision agriculture (GMOS). Retrieved from http://supportprecisionagriculture.org/nobel-laureate-gmo-letter_rjr.html.
   Google Scholar
• APPC. (2015). Annenberg Public Policy Center Papal Encyclical Survey.
   Google Scholar
• Basken, P. (2017). Under fire, National Academies Toughen Conflict-of-Interest Policies. Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from https://www.chronicle.com/article/Under-Fire-National-Academies/239885.
   Google Scholar
• Boykoff, M. T. (2013). Public enemy No. 1? Understanding media representations of outlier views on climate change. American Behavioral Scientist, 57(6), 796–817. doi: 10.1177/0002764213476846
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brossard, D., Scheufele, D. A., Kim, E., & Lewenstein, B. V. (2009). Religiosity as a perceptual filter: Examining processes of opinion formation about nanotechnology. Public Understanding of Science, 18(5), 546–558. doi: 0.1177/0963662507087304
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cook, J., Nuccitelli, D., Green, S. A., Richardson, M., Winkler, B., Painting, R., … Skuce, A. (2013). Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature. Environmental Research Letters, 8(2), 024024. doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dixon, G. N., & Clarke, C. E. (2013). Heightening uncertainty around certain science: Media coverage, false balance, and the autism-vaccine controversy. Science Communication, 35(3), 358–382. doi: 10.1177/1075547012458290
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dunlap, R. E., & McCright, A. M. (2008). A widening gap: Republican and democratic views on climate change. Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development, 50(5), 26–35.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gauchat, G., O’Brien, T., & Mirosa, O. (2017). The legitimacy of environmental scientists in the public sphere. Climatic Change, 143(3-4), 297–306. doi: 10.1007/s10584-017-2015-z
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hansen, J., Holm, L., Frewer, L., Robinson, P., & Sandøe, P. (2003). Beyond the knowledge deficit: Recent research into lay and expert attitudes to food risks. Appetite, 41(2), 111–121. doi: 0.1016/S0195-6663(03)00079-5
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hardwig, J. (1991). The role of trust in knowledge. The Journal of Philosophy, 88(12), 693–708. doi: 10.2307/2027007
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hendriks, F., Kienhues, D., & Bromme, R. (2016). Trust in science and the science of trust. In B. Blöbaum (Ed.), Trust and communication in a digitized world. Models and concepts of trust research (pp 143–159). Berlin: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Hilbeck, A., et al. (2015). No scientific consensus on GMO safety. Environmental Sciences Europe, 27(4), doi: 10.1186/s1230
   Google Scholar
• Kahan, D. M. (2015). Climate-science communication and the measurement problem. Advances in Political Psychology, 36(S1), 1–43. doi: 10.1111/pops.12244
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kahan, D. M. (2017). The “gateway belief” illusion: Reanalyzing the results of a scientific-consensus messaging study. The Journal of Science Communication, 16(05), A03. Retrieved from https://jcom.sissa.it/sites/default/files/documents/JCOM_1605_2017_A03.pdf
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kahan, D., Braman, D., Slovic, P., Gastil, J., & Cohen, G. (2009). Cultural cognition of the risks and benefits of nanotechnology. Nature Nanotechnology, 4, 87–90. doi: 10.1038/nnano.2008.341
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kennedy, B. (2016). Conservative Republicans especially skeptical of climate scientists’ research and understanding. FacTank News in Numbers. Pew Research Center. Retrieved from http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/10/04/conservative-republicans-especially-skeptical-of-climate-scientists-research-and-understanding/.
   Google Scholar
• Kennedy, B., & Funk, C. (2016). Many Americans are skeptical about scientific research on climate and GM foods. FacTank: News in Numbers. Pew Research Center. Retrieved from http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/12/05/many-americans-are-skeptical-about-scientific-research-on-climate-and-gm-foods/.
   Google Scholar
• Kitcher, P. (1990). The division of cognitive labor. The Journal of Philosophy, 87(1), 5–22. doi: 10.2307/2026796
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kunda, Z. (1990). The case for motivated reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 108(3), 480–498. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.108.3.480
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Krimsky, S., & Schwab, T. (2017). Conflicts of interest among committee members in the national academies’ genetically engineered crop study. PLoS ONE, 12(2), e0172317. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0172317
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Landrum, A. R., Eaves, B. S., & Shafto, P. (2015). Learning to trust and trusting to learn: A theoretical framework. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 19(3), 109–111. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2014.12.007
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2016). Genetically engineered crops: Experiences and prospects. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23395
   Google Scholar
• Nisbet, M., & Mooney, C. (2007). Framing Science. Science, 316(5821), 56. doi: 10.1126/science.1142030
   Google Scholar
• Oreskes, N. (2004). Beyond the ivory tower: The scientific consensus of climate change. Science, 306(5702), 1686. doi:10.1126/science.11036
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oreskes, N., & Conway, E. M. (2010). Merchants of doubt: How a handful of scientists obscured the truth on issues from tobacco smoke to global warming. New York, NY: Bloomsbury.
   Google Scholar
• Palmer, S. E., & Schibeci, R. A. (2014). What conceptions of science communication are espoused by science research funding bodies? Public Understanding of Science, 23(5), 511–527. doi: 10.1177/0963662512455295
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pasek, J. (2017). It’s not my consensus: Motivated reasoning and the sources of scientific illiteracy. Public Understanding of Science. Manuscript in press.
   Google Scholar
• Pearce, W., Grundmann, R., Hulme, M., Raman, S., Kershaw, E. H., & Tsouvalis, J. (2017). Beyond counting climate consensus. Environmental Communication, 11, 723–730. doi: 10.1080/17524032.2017.1333965
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pew Research Center. (2014). General public science survey final questionnaire August 15-25, 2014.
   Google Scholar
• Pew Research Center. (2015). Public and scientists views on science and society. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/interactives/public-scientists-opinion-gap/
   Google Scholar
• Pew Research Center. (2016). The politics of climate. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/2016/10/04/the-politics-of-climate/
   Google Scholar
• Pollack, A. (2016). Genetically engineered crops are safe, analysis finds. The New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/18/business/genetically-engineered-crops-are-safe-analysis-finds.html.
   Google Scholar
• Powell, J. L. (2016). The consensus on anthropogenic global warming matters. Bulletin of Science, Technology, & Society, 36(3), 157–163. doi: 10.1177/0270467617707079
   Google Scholar
• PRRI. (2014). PRRI/AAR 2014 religion, values, & climate change survey: September 18-October 8, 2014.
   Google Scholar
• R Core Team (2017). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. https://www.R-project.org/
   Google Scholar
• Sturgis, P., & Allum, N. (2004). Science in society: Re-evaluating the deficit model of public attitudes. Public Understanding of Science, 13(1), 55–74. doi: 10.1177/0963662504042690
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Suldovsky, B., Landrum, A. R., & Stroud, N. (under review). Public perceptions of who counts as a scientist for controversial science. Manuscript under review.
   Google Scholar
• van der Linden, S. L., Clarke, C. E., & Maibach, E. W. (2015). Highlighting consensus among medical scientists increases public support for vaccines: Evidence from a randomized experiment. BMC Public Health, 15(1207), 352. doi: 10.1186/s12889-015-2541-4
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• van der Linden, S. L., Leiserowitz, A. A., Feinberg, G. D., & Maibach, E. W. (2014). How to communicate the scientific consensus on climate change: Plain facts, pie charts, or metaphors. Climatic Change, 126(1-2), 255–262. doi: 10.1007/s10584-014-1190-4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van der Linden, S. L., Leiserowitz, A. A., Feinberg, G. D., & Maibach, E. W. (2015). The scientific consensus on climate change as a gateway belief: Experimental evidence. PLoS ONE, 10(2), e0118489. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0118489
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van der Linden, S. L., Leiserowitz, A. A., & Maibach, E. W. (2017). Gateway illusion or cultural cognition confusion? Journal of Science Communication, 16(5), A04. doi:10.17863/CAM.22574
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van der Linden, S. L., Leiserowitz, A., Rosenthal, S., & Maibach, E. (2017). Inoculating the public against misinformation about climate change. Global Challenges, 1(2), 1600008. doi: 10.1002/gch2.201600008
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weisberg, M., & Muldoon, R. (2009). Epistemic landscapes and the division of cognitive labor. Philosophy of Science, 76(2), 225–252. doi: 10.1086/644786
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhao, X., Strasser, A. A., Cappella, J. N., Lerman, C., & Fishbein, M. (2011). A measure of perceived argument strength: Reliability and validity in health communication contexts. Communication Methods and Measures, 5(1), 48–75. doi: 10.1080/19312458.2010.547822
   PubMedGoogle Scholar