Public Conceptions of Scientific Consensus.

Despite decades of concerted efforts to communicate to the public on important scientific issues pertaining to the environment and public health, gaps between public acceptance and the scientific consensus on these issues remain stubborn. One strategy for dealing with this shortcoming has been to focus on the existence of scientific consensus on the relevant matters. Recent science communication research has added support to this general idea, though the interpretation of these studies and their generalizability remains a matter of contention. In this paper, we describe results of a qualitative interview study on different models of scientific consensus and the relationship between such models and trust of science, finding that familiarity with scientific consensus is rarer than might be expected. These results suggest that consensus messaging strategies may not be effective.

Understanding "understanding" in Public Understanding of Science.

This study examines the conflation of terms such as "knowledge" and "understanding" in peer-reviewed literature, and tests the hypothesis that little current research clearly distinguishes between importantly distinct epistemic states. Two sets of data are presented from papers published in the journal Public Understanding of Science. In the first set, the digital text analysis tool, Voyant, is used to analyze all papers published in 2014 for the use of epistemic success terms. In the second set of data, all papers published in Public Understanding of Science from 2010-2015 are systematically analyzed to identify instances in which epistemic states are empirically measured. The results indicate that epistemic success terms are inconsistently defined, and that measurement of understanding, in particular, is rarely achieved in public understanding of science studies. We suggest that more diligent attention to measuring understanding, as opposed to mere knowledge, will increase efficacy of scientific outreach and communication efforts.

Pluto and the platypus: An odd ball and an odd duck - On classificatory norms.

Many astronomers seem to believe that we have discovered that Pluto is not a planet. I contest this assessment. Recent discoveries of trans-Neptunian Pluto-sized objects do not militate for Pluto's expulsion from the planets unless we have prior reason for not simply counting these newly-discovered objects among the planets. I argue that this classificatory controversy - which I compare to the controversy about the classification of the platypus - illustrates how our classificatory practices are laden with normative commitments of a distinctive kind. I conclude with a discussion of the relevance of such "norm-ladenness" to other controversies in the metaphysics of classification, such as the monism/pluralism debate.

Balancing the Costs of Wildlife Research with the Benefits of Understanding a Panzootic Disease, White-Nose Syndrome.

Additional ethical issues surrounding wildlife research compared with biomedical research include consideration of the harm of research to the ecosystem as a whole and the benefits of conservation to the same species of animals under study. Research on white-nose syndrome in bats provides a case study to apply these considerations to determine whether research that harms ecosystems under crisis is justified. By expanding well-established guidelines for animal and human subjects research, we demonstrate that this research can be considered highly justified. Studies must minimize the amount of harm to the ecosystem while maximizing the knowledge gained. However, the likelihood of direct application of the results of the research for conservation should not necessarily take priority over other considerations, particularly when the entire context of the ecologic disaster is poorly understood. Since the emergence of white-nose syndrome, researchers have made great strides in understanding this panzootic disease and are now in a position to utilize this knowledge to mitigate this wildlife crisis.