Science, its publics and new media: Reflecting on the present and future of science communication

Dominique Brossard


Scientific journalism faces the challenge of adapting not only to new formats but also to new information exchange dynamics. New online platforms, making it easier to access and produce scientific content, are forcing science publics to evolve. The online environment has turned into science communication reality, and both scientists and communicators must adapt to it. This paper discusses these changes and their implications for science journalism and an informed citizenry.


Science and social media; science communication; online communication; public understanding of science

Full Text: PDF PDF (Català) PDF (Español)



Anderson, A. A.; Brossard, D.; Scheufele, D. A.; Xenos, M. A. and P. Ladwig, 2013. «The “Nasty Effect”: Online Incivility and Risk Perceptions of Emerging Technologies». Journal of Computer Mediated Communication. DOI: <10.1111/jcc4.12009>.

Brossard, D., 2013. «New Media Landscapes and the Science Information Consumer». Proceedings of the National Academy of Science of the United States of America, 110: 14096-14101. DOI: <10.1073/pnas.1212744110>.

Brossard, D. and D. A. Scheufele, 2013. «Science, New Media, and the Public». Science, 339(6115): 40-41. DOI: <101126/science.1232329>.

Brossard, D.; Simis, M.; Yeo, S. and D. A. Scheufele, 2013. Scientists and Social Media at a R1 American University. University of Wisconsin. Madison.

Colson, V., 2011. «Science Blogs as Competing Channels for the Dissemination of Science News». Journalism, 12(7): 889-902. DOI: <10.1177/1464884911412834>.

Corley, E. A.; Kim, Y. and D. A. Scheufele, 2011. «Leading U.S. Nano-scientists’ Perceptions about Media Coverage and the Public Communication of Scientific Research Findings». Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 13(12): 7041-7055. DOI: <10.1007/s11051-011-0617-3>.

Dudo, A.; Dunwoody, S. and D. A. Scheufele, 2011. «The Emergence of Nano News: Tracking Thematic Trends and Changes in Media Coverage of Nanotechnology». Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 88(1): 55-75. DOI: <10.1177/107769901108800104>.

Economisti-Associati, 2011. Feasibility Study for the Preparatory Action «ERASMUS for Journalists»: Part 2 – Statistical Review. Economisti Associati. Bologna.

Fausto, S. et al., 2012. «Research Blogging: Indexing and Registering the Change in Science 2.0». PLoS ONE, 7(12): e50109. DOI: <10.1371/journal.pone.0050109>.

Horrigan, J., 2006. The Internet as a Resource for News and Information about Science. Pew Internet & American Life Project. Washington.

International Telecommunication Union, 2012. Measuring the Information Society. ICT Data and Statistics Division, International Telecommunication Union. Geneva.

LaBarre, S., 2013. «Why We’re Shutting off Our Comments». Popular Science, 24 September.

Ladwing, P.; Anderson, A. A.; Brossard, D.; Scheufele, D. A. and B. Shaw, 2010. «Narrowing the Nano Discourse?». Materials Today, 13: 52-54. DOI: <10.1016/51369-7021(10)70084-5>.

Newman, N. and D. A. L. Levy, 2013. Reuters Institute Digital News Report 2013. Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism. University of Oxford. Oxford.

Nirenberg, M. W., 1967. «Will Society Be Prepared?». Science, 157(3789): 633. DOI: <10.1126/science.157.3789.633>.

Olmstead, K., Mitchell, A. and T. Rosenstiel, 2011. «Navigating Online News: Where People Go, How They Get There and What Lures Them Away». Pew Research Journalism Project. Available at: <>.

Scheufele, D. A.; Hardy, B. W.; Brossard, D.; Wiasmel-Manor, I. S. and E. Nisbet, 2006. «Democracy Based on Difference: Examining the Links between Structural Heterogeneity, Heterogeneity of Discussion Networks, and Democratic Citizenship». Journal of Communication, 56(4): 728-753. DOI: <10.1111/j.1460-2466.2006.00317.x>.

Shoemaker, P. and T. Vos, 2009. Gatekeeping Theory. Routledge. New York.


  • There are currently no refbacks.