[Risk communication of policy advising scientific organisations: a thematic outline using the example of the German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment]. / Risikokommunikation politikberatender Wissenschaftsorganisationen: Ein Themenaufriss am Beispiel des Bundesinstituts für Risikobewertung.

Regulatory scientific agencies, such as the German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR), are confronted with various challenges in their science-based risk communication. On the one hand, the communication of health risks is becoming increasingly complex and, accordingly, more demanding, which is why - among other things - questions about the health literacy of consumers and target group-oriented risk communication are gaining importance. On the other hand, the outputs of regulatory scientific agencies are increasingly exposed to politicisation and public criticism, which increases the relevance of questions about the objectivity and trustworthiness of expert opinion, risk assessment, and official statements, as well as the legitimacy and reputation of such organisations. This is further intensified by the emergence of new social media actors who produce and publish their own information and communication materials. The misinformation, disinformation and malinformation consequently distributed in this context represent another challenge, which is closely related to questions of adequate communication of health risks and of stabilising legitimacy, reputation and trustworthiness.The article discusses various approaches to solving these problems, including the optimization and visual enhancement of health information, enabling social participation as well as embedding these measures in strategic stakeholder and reputation management. The article concludes with a call for a more open discussion of inherent dilemmas.

Communicating to and engaging with the public in regulatory science.

This paper presents selected highlights from the 'Engaging with society' session of EFSA's third Scientific Conference 'Science, Food and Society' (Parma, Italy, 18-21 September 2018). The social dimension for scientific advisory bodies largely concerns science communication and public engagement. The political, economic and technological transformation of contemporary societies is challenging conventional structures and approaches in these areas. The disintermediation of communication and the proliferation of misinformation, it is argued, herald the onset of the post-truth society. A better understanding of the way individuals consume information today has led to the development of tools to guide mediators such as journalists and communication specialists in countering these trends. Public engagement can reinforce confidence in regulatory bodies and potentially contribute to the quality of the scientific process. Scientific advisory bodies in Europe have created strategies and mechanisms to engage the public that are designed to increase transparency and representativeness. To be effective, several engagement mechanisms are needed, although factors such as resource constraints, institutional culture and public/stakeholder attitudes may limit their development. In conclusion, a more vigorous role for social research is needed to place scientific risk assessment within broader socio-economic and political contexts. Social science expertise can help to define more impactful public information strategies and to explore the potential opportunities that engaged stakeholders and citizens can make to sustain and strengthen regulatory science.