In the context of combating inaccurate claims of insecurity, it may be useful to repeatedly communicate the extent of expert agreement on science on a contentious issue. Such repeated communications can take place in many places, involving and taking different forms – conversations, social media use, presentations, advertising, communication campaigns and media interviews (see van der Linden et al., 2015). However, as has already been mentioned, the transmission of a scientific consensus can also deepen differences of opinion on science, for example. B if communication involves perceived attacks on the values or groups that hold it (Kahan, 2015). Further research is needed to find ways to provide an expert consensus that can contribute to understanding. Other studies suggest that it may be beneficial to speak explicitly about uncertainty in scientific understanding, to be fully transparent about how scientific conclusions are drawn, and how to reduce uncertainty over time (Druckman, 2015; Jamieson and Hardy, 2014). Explaining how the conclusions were drawn can be credible and create increased public interest in a scientific research and discovery story or mystery (Druckman, 2015). Further research is needed on the effectiveness of consensus messages, ways of talking about insecurity and the conditions under which such communications are likely to be effective. Research on public segmentation methods needs to be replicated and expanded so that researchers understand the impact that scientific communication can have, for whom and in what contexts. A related question is how tailored messages designed to get people to take scientifically supported positions could influence their perception of scientists and scientific information.
Until your conclusion, you will probably have been involved in lively discussions in the classroom, heated political disagreements, or even full-fledged protests. To be most effective, public engagement must be done as soon as possible in a public debate and those involved in this issue must be addressed in many communication rounds. The first step is often for scientists and stakeholders and stakeholders to work together to identify issues of concern and assess the extent to which research can address these concerns. Repeated reflections over time create trust between different participants – an approach that is much more successful than inviting participation after a conflict that has developed and intensified.