Quality of science journalism in the age of Artificial Intelligence explored with a mixed methodology.

Science journalists, traditionally, play a key role in delivering science information to a wider audience. However, changes in the media ecosystem and the science-media relationship are posing challenges to reliable news production. Additionally, recent developments such as ChatGPT and Artificial Intelligence (AI) more generally, may have further consequences for the work of (science) journalists. Through a mixed-methodology, the quality of news reporting was studied within the context of AI. A content analysis of media output about AI (news articles published within the time frame 1 September 2022-28 February 2023) explored the adherence to quality indicators, while interviews shed light on journalism practices regarding quality reporting on and with AI. Perspectives from understudied areas in four European countries (Belgium, Italy, Portugal, and Spain) were included and compared. The findings show that AI received continuous media attention in the four countries. Furthermore, despite four different media landscapes, the reporting in the news articles adhered to the same quality criteria such as applying rigour, including sources of information, accessibility, and relevance. Thematic analysis of the interview findings revealed that impact of AI and ChatGPT on the journalism profession is still in its infancy. Expected benefits of AI related to helping with repetitive tasks (e.g. translations), and positively influencing journalistic principles of accessibility, engagement, and impact, while concerns showed fear for lower adherence to principles of rigour, integrity and transparency of sources of information. More generally, the interviewees expressed concerns about the state of science journalism, including a lack of funding influencing the quality of reporting. Journalists who were employed as staff as well as those who worked as freelancers put efforts in ensuring quality output, for example, via editorial oversight, discussions, or memberships of associations. Further research into the science-media relationship is recommended.

A Q methodology study on divergent perspectives on CRISPR-Cas9 in the Netherlands.

BACKGROUND: CRISPR-Cas9, a technology enabling modification of the human genome, is developing rapidly. There have been calls for public debate to discuss its ethics, societal implications, and governance. So far, however, little is known about public attitudes on CRISPR-Cas9. This study contributes to a better understanding of public perspectives by exploring the various holistic perspectives Dutch citizens have on CRISPR-Cas9. METHODS: This study used Q methodology to identify different perspectives of Dutch citizens (N = 30) on the use of CRISPR-Cas9. The Q-sort method aims at segmenting audiences based on the structural characteristics of their perspectives. Participants individually ranked 32 statements about CRISPR-Cas9 and discussed their rankings in small groups. By-person factor analysis was performed using PQMethod. Participants' contributions to the discussions were used to further make sense of the audience segments identified. RESULTS: Five perspectives on CRISPR-Cas9 were identified: (1) pragmatic optimism (2) concerned scepticism; (3) normative optimism; (4) enthusiastic support; and (5) benevolent generalism. Each perspective represents a unique position motivated by different ranking rationales. Sorting rationales included improving health, preventing negative impacts on society, and fear of a slippery slope. Overall, there is broad, but not universal support for medical uses of CRISPR-Cas9. CONCLUSIONS: Research on CRISPR-Cas9 should prioritise the broadly supported applications of the technology. Research and public debates on CRISPR-Cas9, its uses, its broader implications, and the governance of CRISPR-Cas9 are recommended. A discourse that includes all perspectives can contribute to the embedding of future uses of CRISPR-Cas9 in society. This study shows that Q methodology followed by group discussions enables citizens to contribute meaningfully to discourses about research.

Practices of Responsible Research and Innovation: A Review.

This paper presents results of a systematic literature review of RRI practices which aimed to gather insights to further both the theoretical and practical development of RRI. Analysing practices of RRI and mapping out main approaches as well as the values, dimensions or characteristics pursued with those practices, can add to understanding of the more conceptual discussions of RRI and enhance the academic debate. The results, based on a corpus of 52 articles, show that practices already reflect the rich variety of values, dimensions and characteristics provided in the main definitions in use, although not all are addressed yet. In fact, articles dealing with uptake of RRI practices may be improved by including more methodological information. RRI practices may further the conceptual debate by including more reflection, and these may foster mutual responsiveness between theory and practice by early anticipating impacts.

Public opinions about human enhancement can enhance the expert-only debate: A review study.

Human enhancement, the non-medical use of biomedical technologies to improve the human body or performance beyond their 'natural' limitations, is a growing trend. At the same time, the use of these technologies has societal consequences. In societal debates about human enhancement, however, it is mainly the voices of experts that are being heard, and little is known about the public's understanding of human enhancement. The views of the public can give valuable insights, and can, in turn, supplement experts' voices in political decision-making as has been argued before for other emerging technologies. This study presents a systematic literature review of current public perceptions and attitudes towards technologies for human enhancement. Results show that the public's view has not been assessed often. Studies originate mainly from western-oriented countries and cover a broad range of enhancement technologies. In the studies, the majority of respondents hold moderate to strong negative attitudes towards enhancement technologies for non-medical applications, although the type of technology influences these opinions. The study provides an overview of what is known about citizens' attitudes towards technologies for human enhancement.

Nanotechnology in Dutch science cafés: Public risk perceptions contextualised.

Understanding public perceptions of and attitudes to nanotechnology is important in order to understand and facilitate processes of dialogue and public participation. This research quantitatively analysed risk perceptions and attitudes of Dutch science café participants (n = 233) and compared these with members of the Dutch public (n = 378) who had not attended a café but were interested in science and technology as well. A qualitative analysis of the meetings contextualised and enriched the quantitative findings. Both groups shared similar key attitudes and were positive about nanotechnology while the Dutch café participants were even more positive about nanotechnology than the group of non-participants. The perception that nanotechnology would lead to risk applications was only predictive of attitudes for the non-participants. The qualitative analysis showed that café participants and speakers considered discussion of the risks, benefits and related issues important. Further research could investigate how science cafés can play a role in the science-society debate.

Public participation in genomics research in the Netherlands: validating a measurement scale.

Nowadays, new technologies, like genomics, cannot be developed without the support of the public. However, although interested, the public does not always actively participate in science issues when offered the opportunity via public participation activities. In a study aimed at validating a measurement scale, first, we investigated if public participation existed, and, secondly, we investigated how levels of public participation in genomics research varied among groups. Finally, we studied which factors predicted public participation. Results were based on a questionnaire with four subsamples. Results confirmed, first of all, the internal consistency of the measurement scale to assess levels of public participation. Secondly, the groups differed significantly with regard to their levels of participation in genomics research. Finally, the findings revealed that information-seeking behaviour, knowledge and education were main predictors of public participation, while interest, social involvement, and trust and influence had some influence together with age and gender.