Helena Bilandzic

This essay proposes a conceptual framework that reconceptualizes scientific evidence as a process of public construction in contemporary media environments. In social media contexts, scientists, journalists, influencers, NGOs, lay publics and AI agents participate in the circulation and interpretation of evidential claims. The essay’s contribution is to explain how evidential status itself is publicly assembled, circulated, internalized, and fed back into further communication. We distinguish two analytically coupled layers of this process: amalgamated evidence , the publicly visible circulation and recombination of claims across posts, comments and shares, and internalized evidence , the individual representations through which users interpret and evaluate these claims. Their reciprocal “circle of evidence” is driven by three recurring communicative behaviours—consumption, participation and generation—and shaped by platform logics that amplify, recontextualize and remix information. Under these conditions, evidential status emerges from communicative interaction rather than solely from scientific procedures, creating potential divergences between scientific records and what publics perceive as evidence. By conceptualizing evidencing as a socio-technical and communicative process, the framework aims to stimulate debate and outlines a research agenda for examining how public circulation and individual internalization mutually shape the authority of science in digital media environments.

This content analysis investigates the functions and types of narratives in German science news about genomic research as well as their degree of narrativity. The results show that nearly half of all articles contained at least one narrative. They were used predominantly to corroborate scientific findings. Narratives about the research process were most common, followed by narratives about researchers and personal fates of affected individuals. Personal-fate narratives displayed the highest levels of narrativity, research-process narratives the lowest. The findings highlight the value of a differentiated approach to studying narratives in science communication.

Narrative messages are widely recognized for their capacity to shape attitudes, beliefs, and even behavior (Braddock & Dillard, 2016; Shen et al., 2015; Zebregs et al., 2015). This persuasive poten...

As AI increasingly participates in science communication, it is unclear how people evaluate AI as a source of scientific information. This study examines how message framing and identity cues shape public evaluations of communicative AI and whether these effects differ when AI is encountered through reading or direct interaction. Two preregistered online experiments in Germany contrasted science communication about AI (reading a news-style article) with science communication with AI (interacting with a chatbot), manipulating risk versus progress framing and human-like versus machine-like cues. In an article-based context (Experiment 1, N = 862), progress framing increased trust in AI, while machine-like wording further improved trust. In an interactive context (Experiment 2, N = 868), framing shaped evaluations indirectly by reducing fear, while human-like cues increased social presence and parasocial connection, producing indirect gains across key outcomes. Across both experiments, higher AI competence was associated with more positive evaluations. Overall, the findings show that framing and design cues exert modest but systematic effects that depend on the communicative format.

One third of greenhouse gas emissions comes from the production, distribution and disposal of food. Animal products generally have a higher environmental footprint than plant-based foods, with grains, fruits and vegetables having the lowest impact and ruminant meat having the highest. Reducing meat consumption benefits the environment – but also improves health outcomes; for example, reducing the risk of cardiovascular disease and cancer. Consumers have some degree of freedom in their daily behaviour and can contribute to both planetary sustainability and personal health through their food choices. In this article, we focus on consumers as key actors in the food system and propose a framework for communication goals to stimulate changes in food choices. We argue that communication efforts need to (1) frame food choices as both healthy and sustainable (‘dualistic framing’), and (2) inform about the health and sustainability consequences of food choices. Moreover, we argue that communication efforts also need to (3) support the socio-emotional readiness to make healthy and sustainable food choices, for example by emphasizing the hedonic value of plant-based foods. The conceptual framework will be useful both to inspire future research and guide practical campaign work.

The rapid advancement of communicative artificial intelligence (ComAI) is profoundly impacting science communication, offering new opportunities for easier and more audience-oriented communication. However, it also poses several challenges for its practice. Based on a narrative review of literature on science communication and ComAI quality, this article develops a framework of quality principles for science communication with ComAI. The framework identifies the quality dimensions of scientific integrity, human-centricity, ethical responsiveness, inclusive impact, and governance. We discuss applications of this framework in technology development, practitioner training, guideline development, and quality evaluation. This work aims to foster critical discussions on the normative standards for ComAI use in this field.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, scientific information served as the basis for political decisions and individual actions. We argue that in such large-scale emergencies, audiences seek more than information: they seek trusted individuals, like scientists and public-health experts, who have expertise in relevant areas. Celebrity scientists are mediated personae who not only convey information, but also offer audiences social cues. Specifically, audiences can develop parasocial relationships—a sense of knowing a mediated figure—with well-known scientists. Additionally, celebrity scientists provide audiences with reassurance that experts are dealing with the problem, thus reducing anxiety. This chapter proposes that trust in science is, to some extent, fuelled by public-facing scientists. We review relevant research on trust in celebrity scientists as well as conceptual approaches that may explain motivations for seeking out celebrity scientists, ranging from information needs to emotional gratifications to parasocial relationships. We also synthesise empirical studies of celebrity scientist effects in these areas. Finally, we conclude by discussing the implications for health and science communication.

Public discussions of controversial science fields like COVID-19 or climate science increasingly address inner-scientific structures and the norms guiding the scientific system—aspects that are normally discussed within the scientific community. However, not much is known about the endorsement of scientific norms by non-scientists and how those endorsements differ between controversial und uncontroversial science fields. We conducted a cross-sectional national survey in Germany ( N = 1007) to capture the public endorsement of scientific norms and explored the role of the science field, political ideology, and science news consumption. Results suggest that the endorsement of scientific norms is significantly higher in controversial fields than in less controversial fields. More left-leaning political ideology is connected to higher levels of norm endorsement; science news consumption is partly associated with lower scientific norm endorsement. We discuss our findings regarding their implications for the public’s image and understanding of controversial science fields.

The world is increasingly being overwhelmed by plastic waste. Against this backdrop, bioplastics seem to offer a suitable technological solution and are promoted within policy strategies moving toward a bioeconomy. However, numerous ecological trade-offs have become clear, since bioplastics—depending on their chemical composition—can be just as problematic as conventional plastics. In this chapter, we first elaborate on the ambivalences of bioplastics from a sociological and an ethical perspective, following which we sketch out the challenges for transformative learning by analyzing didactic material used in primary schools in Germany. We argue that there are no easy answers to the question of whether bioplastics make an adequate contribution to solving the plastic problem, and we take the position that people need to be empowered to make their own decisions through transparent knowledge transfer.