Michiel Van Oudheusden

Facts may have been declared dead, yet many science communicators continue to fight to keep them alive. At the same time, it is increasingly clear that preserving facts alone is not enough. To secure a meaningful place for science in today's world, science communicators must also develop new strategies that go beyond defending facts to fostering trust and engagement. They must fully embrace the `post-post truth' condition, in which the blurring of fact and opinion has become deeply entrenched in public discourse; and where many no longer know – or care — what constitutes truth. This can be achieved by rethinking science communication as performance beyond content delivery. This means creating aesthetic, existential, sensorial, and other experiences that make engagement with science more about relationships and identity, and less about establishing a common ground of truth. We illustrate what this approach looks like through the Theatre Dialogues of Dissent — a Dutch science communication project on the polarisation surrounding climate change.

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common heart rhythm disorder in the Western world. Between the years 2010 and 2019, the global prevalence of AF rose from 33.5 million to 59 million, highlighting the importance of developing equitable treatments for patients. The disease is associated with symptoms such as palpitations, dizziness, fatigue, shortness of breath, and cognitive dysfunction. In addition, AF increases the risk of developing a stroke and heart failure. Despite new insights into risk factors that can lead to the development of AF, the success of current treatments is suboptimal. Numerous risk factors, such as hypertension, diabetes, and obesity, have been associated with the development and progression of AF. As these can be lifestyle-related risk factors, lifestyle modification may be a solution to reduce AF-related symptoms as well as episodes. Research results show that certain dietary changes can reduce AF and numerous risk factors for AF. Increasing attention is being given to Mediterranean and whole, plant-based eating patterns, which emphasize eating grains, legumes, vegetables, fruits, and nuts, while excluding most—or all—animal products. Hence, what are the beneficial aspects of a Mediterranean and plant-based diet which consists mainly of unprocessed foods? In the current review, we discuss the outcomes of diet-based treatments. Moreover, other diet-related treatments, brought up by patient initiatives, are highlighted. These patient-initiated studies include L-glutamine and electrolytes as options to manage AF. Also, we highlight the emerging importance of valuing patient needs and a quality-of-life-centered approach to medicine. As indicated by recent studies and patient experiences, citizen science can create inclusive solutions that lead to patient empowerment and a holistic approach for AF management.

Citizen science is a multilayered concept. Although it is generally understood as a form of public engagement with science and technology, it can take various forms, with widely different roles for citizens. Despite this vastness, a “contributory” strand of citizen science dominates the field, which formally limits citizens’ roles to those of data gatherers for professional scientists or experts. This has led critics to argue that citizen science is not as inclusive, socially transformative, or democratizing as its advocates claim, and to appeals by scholars, practitioners, and policymakers for more dialogue and deliberation in all stages of citizen science processes. In this piece, we share our reflections on these questions drawing on our experiences as participant observers in contributory citizen science projects in various parts of the world. Responding to the above critiques, we illustrate how such projects can have emancipatory potential in terms of impacting policy agendas, inciting behavioral change, and engaging hard-to-reach societal groups. We argue that the future of citizen science lies in pluralizing the citizen sciences by experimenting with various modes of democratic representation, participation, and deliberation.

This article introduces and discusses a novel form of scholarly output, the bullshit cartoon abstract, which can be used to illustrate summaries of fictitious research papers for both scholarly and lay readers. Presenting five self-authored examples that meticulously deal with trivial research subjects, from the use of visual mnemonics in education to disaster marketing, the article classifies these abstracts along seven dimensions (analytic, aesthetic, existential, satirical, pedagogical, recreational, and opportunistic) to illuminate how bullshit is enacted in academic writing. Building on this classification, it reappraises academic bullshit(ting) as potentially generative of new and multi-textured expressions of creative scholarship.

In this Special Issue, authors take stock of the shortcomings and accomplishments of Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) by delving into past RRI policies and processes, and by probing possible and desirable RRI futures. Authors weave together old and new approaches, such as social innovation, ecological economics, (techno)feminism, care ethics, postcolonialism, indigenous knowledge systems, and slow science with the aim of reconstituting RRI anew in a global context. The Special Issue extends an invitation to JRI audiences to reflect with authors critically on what has been learned and to imagine new practices and frameworks for the responsible governance of science and innovation alongside other anticipatory, integrative, and participatory frameworks.