Factors influencing underrepresented geoscientists' decisions to accept or decline faculty job offers.

Many geoscience departments are taking steps to recruit and retain faculty from underrepresented groups. Here we interview 19 geoscientists who identify as an underrepresented race or gender who recently declined a tenure-track faculty job offer. A range of key factors influenced their decisions to accept or decline a position including commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) including personal identities, DEI initiatives, and mentorship; (in)civility during job interviews; values revealed in negotiation; and compatibility with personal life including family and geography. Many of the participants experienced hiring processes inconsistent with existing recommendations to increase faculty diversity. Therefore, we leverage our results to provide actionable recommendations for improving the equity and effectiveness of faculty recruitment efforts. We find that departments may doubly benefit from improving their culture: in addition to benefiting current members of the department, it may also help with recruitment.

Trust and trustworthy artificial intelligence: A research agenda for AI in the environmental sciences.

Demands to manage the risks of artificial intelligence (AI) are growing. These demands and the government standards arising from them both call for trustworthy AI. In response, we adopt a convergent approach to review, evaluate, and synthesize research on the trust and trustworthiness of AI in the environmental sciences and propose a research agenda. Evidential and conceptual histories of research on trust and trustworthiness reveal persisting ambiguities and measurement shortcomings related to inconsistent attention to the contextual and social dependencies and dynamics of trust. Potentially underappreciated in the development of trustworthy AI for environmental sciences is the importance of engaging AI users and other stakeholders, which human-AI teaming perspectives on AI development similarly underscore. Co-development strategies may also help reconcile efforts to develop performance-based trustworthiness standards with dynamic and contextual notions of trust. We illustrate the importance of these themes with applied examples and show how insights from research on trust and the communication of risk and uncertainty can help advance the understanding of trust and trustworthiness of AI in the environmental sciences.

Examining expertise: Synthetic biology experts' perceptions of risk, benefit, and the public for research and applications regulation.

Scientific experts can play an important role in decision-making surrounding policy for technical and value-laden issues, often in contexts that directly affect lay publics. Yet little is known about what characterizes scientific experts who want lay public involvement in decision-making. In this study, we examine how synthetic biology experts' perceptions of risks, benefits, and ambivalence for synthetic biology relate to views of lay publics, deference to scientific authority, and regulations. We analyzed survey data of researchers in the United States, who published academic articles relating to synthetic biology from 2000 to 2015. Scientific experts who see less risk and are more deferent to scientific authority appear to favor a more closed system in which regulations are sufficient, citizens should not be involved, and scientists know best. Conversely, scientific experts who see more potential for risk and see the public as bringing a valuable perspective appear to favor a more open, inclusive system.

Evaluating the Effects of News-following, Volume and Content of News Coverage on Americans' Risk Perceptions during the 2014-2016 Ebola Outbreak.

We used the 2014-2016 Ebola outbreak to examine the relationships between risk perceptions and media coverage (volume and content). We analyzed how public opinion from longitudinal U.S. panel data related to the number of published news articles and the proportion that discussed risks. News following, volume and risk content were positively related to U.S. and global risk perceptions. Perceptions of U.S. risk declined at different rates, depending upon news attention and potential exposure to risk content. Both media volume and content were significant factors, suggesting scholars should focus more on combined effects of news media volume and content.

The state of GMOs on social media An analysis of state-level variables and discourse on Twitter in the United States.

This study analyzes the relationship between state-level variables and Twitter discourse on genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Using geographically identified tweets related to GMOs, we examined how the sentiments expressed about GMOs related to education levels, news coverage, proportion of rural and urban counties, state-level political ideology, amount of GMO-related legislation introduced, and agricultural dependence of each U.S. state. State-level characteristics predominantly did not predict the sentiment of the discourse. Instead, the topics of tweets predicted the majority of variance in tweet sentiment at the state level. The topics that tweets within a state focused on were related to state-level characteristics in some cases.

A Longitudinal Analysis of Americans' Media Sources, Risk Perceptions, and Judged Need for Action during the Zika Outbreak.

The objective of this study is to better understand the effects of media attention on Americans' perceptions of risk by analyzing the different media sources and outlets, or "repertoires," reported as used during the small 2016-2017 Zika outbreak in the U.S. We analyzed survey data from a four-wave longitudinal panel study over nine months - July 19, 2016 through April 24, 2017 (n = 743) - using an online panel of American adults. Media attention related to ratings of personal risk, U.S. risk, and need for action. Personal risk was enhanced more by reported attention to international coverage, reduced by certain reported website attention, but enhanced by reported attention to public health agency websites. U.S. risk was enhanced by reported attention to both domestic and international coverages, reduced by television. Judged need for U.S. action was enhanced more by exposure to domestic coverage, reduced by reported attention to television and local newspapers, but enhanced by reported exposure to BBC and CNN. Our results demonstrate how the use of different media outlets and sources are related to different perceptions of risk and need for action during 2016-2017 Zika outbreak.

Deference and decision-making in science and society: How deference to scientific authority goes beyond confidence in science and scientists to become authoritarianism.

Deference to scientific authority theoretically captures the belief that scientists and not publics should make decisions on science in society. Few studies examine deference, however, and none test this central theoretical claim. The result is deference is often conflated with concepts such as trust in scientists and belief in the authority of science. This study examines two claims key to conceptualizing deference: that deference (1) predicts anti-democratic views of decision-making and (2) relates to but is distinct from beliefs of science as authoritative knowledge. Analyzing US nationally representative data, we find deference to scientific authority does predict anti-democratic views, and this is its distinct conceptual value: trust in scientists and belief in science as authoritative knowledge strongly relate to deference, but both predict pro-democratic views, unlike deference. We discuss how these findings highlight deference as vital for understanding perceptions of science and societal decision-making and how we can better develop the concept.

Promises and perils of gene drives: Navigating the communication of complex, post-normal science.

In November of 2017, an interdisciplinary panel discussed the complexities of gene drive applications as part of the third Sackler Colloquium on "The Science of Science Communication." The panel brought together a social scientist, life scientist, and journalist to discuss the issue from each of their unique perspectives. This paper builds on the ideas and conversations from the session to provide a more nuanced discussion about the context surrounding responsible communication and decision-making for cases of post-normal science. Deciding to use gene drives to control and suppress pests will involve more than a technical assessment of the risks involved, and responsible decision-making regarding their use will require concerted efforts from multiple actors. We provide a review of gene drives and their potential applications, as well as the role of journalists in communicating the extent of uncertainties around specific projects. We also discuss the roles of public opinion and online environments in public engagement with scientific processes. We conclude with specific recommendations about how to address current challenges and foster more effective communication and decision-making for complex, post-normal issues, such as gene drives.

Rethinking Social Amplification of Risk: Social Media and Zika in Three Languages.

Using the Zika outbreak as a context of inquiry, this study examines how assigning blame on social media relates to the social amplification of risk framework (SARF). Past research has discussed the relationship between the SARF and traditional mass media, but the role of social media platforms in amplification or attenuation of risk perceptions remains understudied. Moreover, the communication and perceptions of Zika-related risk are not limited to discussions in English. To capture conversations in languages spoken by affected countries, this study combines data in English, Spanish, and Portuguese. To better understand the assignment of blame and perceptions of risk in new media environments, we looked at three different facets of conversations surrounding Zika on Facebook and Twitter: the prominence of blame in each language, how specific groups were discussed throughout the Zika outbreak, and the sentiment expressed about genetically engineered (GE) mosquitoes. We combined machine learning with human coding to analyze public discourse in all three languages. We found differences between languages and platforms in the amount of blame assigned to different groups. We also found more negative sentiments expressed about GE mosquitoes on Facebook than on Twitter. These meaningful differences only emerge from analyses across the three different languages and platforms, pointing to the importance of multilingual approaches for risk communication research. Specific recommendations for outbreak and risk communication practitioners are also discussed.

An Overview of Attitudes Toward Genetically Engineered Food.

Genetically engineered food has had its DNA, RNA, or proteins manipulated by intentional human intervention. We provide an overview of the importance and regulation of genetically engineered food and lay attitudes toward it. We first discuss the pronaturalness context in the United States and Europe that preceded the appearance of genetically engineered food. We then review the definition, prevalence, and regulation of this type of food. Genetically engineered food is widespread in some countries, but there is great controversy worldwide among individuals, governments, and other institutions about the advisability of growing and consuming it. In general, life scientists have a much more positive view of genetically engineered food than laypeople. We examine the bases of lay opposition to genetically engineered food and the evidence for how attitudes change. Laypeople tend to see genetically engineered food as dangerous and offering few benefits. We suggest that much of the lay opposition is morally based. One possibility is that, in some contexts, people view nature and naturalness as sacred and genetically engineered food as a violation of naturalness. We also suggest that for many people these perceptions of naturalness and attitudes toward genetically engineered food follow the sympathetic magical law of contagion, in which even minimal contact between a natural food and an unnatural entity, either a scientist or a piece of foreign DNA, pollutes or contaminates the natural entity and renders it unacceptable or even immoral to consume.

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine report on genetically engineered crops influences public discourse.

In May 2016, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) released the report "Genetically Engineered Crops: Experiences and Prospects," summarizing scientific consensus on genetically engineered crops and their implications. NASEM reports aim to give the public and policymakers information on socially relevant science issues. Their impact, however, is not well understood. This analysis combines national pre- and post-report survey data with a large-scale content analysis of Twitter discussion to examine the report's effect on public perceptions of genetically modified organisms (GMOs). We find that the report's release corresponded with reduced negativity in Twitter discourse and increased ambivalence in public risk and benefit perceptions of GMOs, mirroring the NASEM report's conclusions. Surprisingly, this change was most likely for individuals least trusting of scientific studies or university scientists. Our findings indicate that NASEM consensus reports can help shape public discourse, even in, or perhaps because of, the complex information landscape of traditional and social media.