In an earlier essay, I advocated that translational bioethics uses the public\'s values, determined through social science, in its analysis of translational science technologies. It may be unclear what those values might be, and whether such a translational ethics would necessarily conclude that cutting edge technologies should not be developed. In this essay, I show the public\'s values relevant to human brain organoids and argue that a translational bioethics analysis using these values would support continued organoid research.

Lay beliefs about human trait heritability are consequential for cooperation and social cohesion, yet there has been no global characterisation of these beliefs. Participants from 30 countries (N = 6128) reported heritability beliefs for intelligence, personality, body weight and criminality, and transnational factors that could influence these beliefs were explored using public nation-level data. Globally, mean lay beliefs differ from published heritability (h2) estimated by twin studies, with a worldwide majority overestimating the heritability of personality and intelligence, and underestimating body weight and criminality. Criminality was seen as substantially less attributable to genes than other traits. People from countries with high infant mortality tended to ascribe greater heritability for most traits, relative to people from low infant mortality countries. This study provides the first systematic foray into worldwide lay heritability beliefs. Future research must incorporate diverse global perspectives to further contextualise and extend upon these findings.

This panel study in Austria in 2020 (NW1 = 912, NW2 = 511) explores distinct audience segments regarding beliefs in misinformation, conspiracy, and evidence statements on COVID-19. I find that citizens fall into seven segments, three of which endorse unsupported claims: The threat skeptics selectively accept misinformation and evidence; the approvers tend to accept all types of information; and the misinformed believe in misinformation and conspiracy statements while rejecting evidence. Further analyses suggest that the misinformed increasingly sought out COVID-19 threat-negating information from scientific sources, while also overall attending to threat-confirming information. These patterns have practical implications for correcting misperceptions.

Background: Few studies have evaluated the ability of the general public to assess the trustworthiness of claims about the effects of healthcare. For the most part, those studies have used self-reported measures of critical health literacy. Methods: We mailed 4500 invitations to Norwegian adults. Respondents were randomly assigned to one of four online questionnaires that included multiple-choice questions that test understanding of Key Concepts people need to understand to assess healthcare claims. They also included questions about intended behaviours and self-efficacy. One of the four questionnaires was identical to one previously used in two randomised trials of educational interventions in Uganda, facilitating comparisons to Ugandan children, parents, and teachers. We adjusted the results using demographic data to reflect the population. Results: A total of 771 people responded. The adjusted proportion of Norwegian adults who answered correctly was < 50% for 17 of the 30 Key Concepts. On the other hand, less than half answered correctly for 13 concepts. The results for Norwegian adults were better than the results for Ugandan children in the intervention arm of the trial and parents, and similar to those of Ugandan teachers in the intervention arm of the trial. Based on self-report, most Norwegians are likely to find out the basis of treatment claims, but few consider it easy to assess whether claims are based on research and to assess the trustworthiness of research. Conclusions: Norwegian adults do not understand many concepts that are essential for assessing healthcare claims and making informed choices. Future interventions should be tailored to address Key Concepts for which there appears to be a lack of understanding.

Public engagement projects developed by university-based academics tend to focus on specific academic topics. Yet, the problems and topics that our audiences want to engage with are broad, challenging, and can\'t be explained or solved by a single academic subject or expertise. In this article, we capitalise on our experience working with academics at the University of Oxford, and a workshop for public engagement professionals that we co-organised with the National Coordinating Centre for Public Engagement, to advocate for a novel approach: interdisciplinary public engagement (public engagement projects that bring together academics from several academic disciplines). We consider the potential benefits and the challenges of this approach and provide examples of how it is starting to be explored.

The public acceptance of evolution remains a contentious issue in the United States. Numerous investigations have used national cross-sectional studies to examine the factors associated with the acceptance or rejection of evolution. This analysis uses a 33-year longitudinal study that followed the same 5000 public-school students from grade 7 through midlife (ages 45-48) and is the first to do so in regard to evolution. A set of structural equation models demonstrate the complexity and changing nature of influences over these three decades. Parents and local influences are strong during the high school years. The combination of post-secondary education and occupational and family choices demonstrate that the 15 years after high school are the switchyards of life.

This article demonstrates-based on an interpretive discourse analysis of three types of memes (Rabid Feminists, Women\'s Bodies, Policy Ideas) and secondary thread discourse on 4chan\'s \"Politically Incorrect\" discussion board-two key findings: (1) the existence of a gendered hate based scientific discourse, \"science fan fiction,\" in online spaces and (2) how gender \"science fan fiction\" is an outcome of the male supremacist cosmology, by producing and justifying resentment against white women as being both inherently untrustworthy (politically, sexually, intellectually) and dangerous. This perspective-which combines hatred and distrust of women with white nationalist anxieties about demographic shifts, racial integrity, and sexuality-then motivates misogynist policy ideas including total domination of women or their removal. 4chan users employ this discourse to \"scientifically\" substantiate claims of white male supremacy, the fundamental untrustworthiness of white women, and to argue white women\'s inherent threat to white male supremacist goals.

This article examines the visions of citizens\' ideal practices regarding technoscientific affairs in a democratic society, namely \"imaginaries of model citizens,\" that underlie three science and public initiatives: public understanding of science, public engagement in science, and citizen science. While imaginaries of citizens are performative and necessary to these initiatives, they are often relegated to the background. I argue that such imaginaries are the result of a complex of perceptions on the nature of science, the role of democracy in scientific activities, and the form of \"democratizing\" science. The imaginary of model citizens in public understanding of science is of literate citizens who should know science sufficiently, use it in daily life, and support science; in public engagement in science, the model citizen is a responsible one who should engage in the governance of technoscientific issues; and in citizen science, a contributive one who should partake in and enjoy creating scientific knowledge.

Politicization is frequently employed as an analytic concept to explain the relationships between politics and media coverage of climate change. However, relatively few works explore how different notions of politicization are mobilized by actors in media discourses themselves. This article does so via a framing analysis of climate change coverage in Canadian newspapers. I investigate how different relationships between science and politics are conceived and associated with varying positions on climate change. In particular, I examine a supposition in science and technology studies that the media remains committed to deficit models and thus uncritically reproduces the authority of science. Scientistic discourses exist but among a diversity of politicization framings. A key finding is that the strongest appeals to scientific neutrality are associated with climate skepticism. This casts light on the nuanced, strategic \"politics of politicization\" in climate change debates. A more fine-grained and reflexive approach to politicization discourses can help identify productive interventions.

Despite scientific consensus on climate change, climate denial is still widespread. While much research has characterised climate denial, comparatively fewer studies have systematically examined how to counteract it. This review fills this gap by exploring the research about counteracting climate denial, the effectiveness and the intentions behind intervention. Through a systematic selection and analysis of 65 scientific articles, this review finds multiple intervention forms, including education, message framing and inoculation. The intentions of intervening range from changing understanding of climate science, science advocacy, influencing mitigation attitudes and counteracting vested industry. A number of divergent findings emerge: whether to separate science from policy; the disputed effects of emotions and the longitudinal impacts of interventions. The review offers guiding questions for those interested in counteracting denialism, the answers to which indicate particular strategies: identify the form of climate denial; consider the purpose of intervention and recognise one\'s relationship to their audiences.