India’s engagement in science promotion activities is diversifying at an
exponential rate. But the same does not hold true for popular science communication apart from the rampant debate in academic
discourse. India’s science promotion activities are happening primarily at
the institutional levels with some need-based programs organized randomly.
Despite witnessing phenomenal growth in mass communication and journalism in
the past three decades, the growth trajectory of India’s science communication is very limited. This poor science communication adversely affects
the acceptance and progress of novel
technologies like GMOs. There exists a lacuna in people’s understanding of
science, passion for science, and the diffusion of information about
science in India. This paper evaluates the reasons for the unending controversy
over GMOs in India through the perspective of science communication. An
interdisciplinary methodology with a three-tier approach was adopted to study, evaluate and devise effective GMO science
communication in India. The first
tier dwells on various science communication models and their possible
application in the Indian setup. Secondly, the existing science communication specifically governing GMOs in India is
analyzed. Finally, the paper devises a Six Segmental Science (SSS)
communication policy that would effectuate the growth and progress of novel
technologies like GMOs. The SSS Communication Policy presents a cumulative,
directional, and methodological approach to GMO Science Communication beginning
with educating the masses followed by collecting their inputs and integrating
it into our communication goals.
References
[1]
Akin, H. (2017). Overview of the Science of Science Communication. In K. H. Jamieson, D. M. Kahan, & D. A. Scheufele (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of the Science of Science Communication (pp. 24-33). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190497620.013.3
[2]
Barath, H. (2019). Indian Initiatives Aim to Break Science’s Language Barrier. Nature, 571, 289-290. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-019-01815-1
[3]
Besley, J. C. (2014). Science and Technology: Public Attitudes and Understanding. In National Science Board. Science and Engineering Indicators 2014. National Science Foundation.
[4]
Bonfadelli, H. (2017). Communications about Biotechnologies and GMOs across Europe. In K. H. Jamieson, D. M. Kahan, & D. A. Scheufele (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of the Science of Science Communication (pp. 157-164). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190497620.013.17
[5]
Boschetti, F., Cvitanovic, C., Fleming, A., & Fulton, E. (2016). A Call for Empirically Based Guidelines for Building Trust among Stakeholders in Environmental Sustainability Projects. Sustainability Science, 11, 855-859. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-016-0382-4
[6]
Bubela, T., Nisbet, M. C., Borchelt, R., Brunger, F., Critchley, C., Einsiedel, E. et al. (2009). Science Communication Reconsidered. Nature Biotechnology, 27, 514-518. https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt0609-514
[7]
Bucchi, M. (2014). Science and the Media: Alternative Routes to Scientific Communications. Routledge
[8]
Chang, C. (2012). Ambivalent Attitudes in a Communication Process: An Integrated Model. Human Communication Research, 38, 332-359. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2012.01429.x
[9]
Chauhan, C. (2013). SC Committee Says No to GM Crops for Time-Being. Hindustan Times.
[10]
Das, S. (2022). Illegal Variety Occupies about a Fifth of GM Cotton Seed Markey. The Financial Express.
[11]
Dietz, T. (2013). Bringing Values and Deliberation to Science Communication. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 110, 14081-14087. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1212740110
[12]
Druckman, J. N., & Lupia, A. (2017). Using Frames to Make Scientific Communication More Effective. In K. H. Jamieson, D. M. Kahan, & D. A. Scheufele (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of the Science of Science Communication (pp. 350-360). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190497620.013.38
[13]
Fahnrich, B. (2018). Digging Deeper? Muddling through? How Environmental Activists Make Sense and Use of Science—An Exploratory Study. Journal of Science Communication, 17, Article No. A08. https://doi.org/10.22323/2.17030208
[14]
Fahnrich, B., Riedlinger, M., & Weitkamp, E. (2020). Activists as “Alternative” Science Communicators—Exploring the Facets of Science Communication in Societal Contexts. Journal of Science Communication, 19, Article No. C01. https://doi.org/10.22323/2.19060301
[15]
Fiske, S. T., & Dupree, C. (2014). Gaining Trust as Well as Respect in Communicating to Motivated Audiences about Science Topics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 111, 13593-13597. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1317505111
[16]
Hendriks, F., Kienhues, D., & Bromme, R. (2016). Trust in Science and the Science of Trust. In B. Blobaum (Ed.), Trust and Communication in a Digitized World: Models and Concepts of Trust Research (pp. 143-159). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-28059-2_8
[17]
Jayaraman, K. (2010). Bt Brinjal Splits Indian Cabinet. Nature Biotechnology, 28, 296. https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt0410-296
Jensen, E., & Holliman, R. (2016). Norms and Values in UK Science Engagement Practice. International Journal of Science Education, 6, 68-88. https://doi.org/10.1080/21548455.2014.995743
[20]
Kahan, D. (2017). On the Sources of Ordinary Science Knowledge and Extraordinary Science Ignorance. In K. H. Jamieson, D. M. Kahan, & D. A. Scheufele (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of the Science of Science Communication (pp. 34-49). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190497620.013.4
[21]
Kaur, A., Jaswal, P. S., & Kohli, R. K. (2013). Genetically Modified Crops in the Courts. Environmental Policy and Law, 43, 36-40.
[22]
Kaur, A., Kohli, R. K., & Jaswal, P. S. (2012). Genetically Modified Organisms: An Indian Ethical Dilemma. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 26, 621-628. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-012-9429-4
[23]
Mueller, S. (2019). Are Market GM Plants an Unrecognized Platform for Bioterrorism and Biocrime? Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology, 7, Article 121. https://doi.org/10.3389/fbioe.2019.00121
[24]
Myers, T. A., Kotcher, J., Stenhouse, N., Anderson, A. A., Beall, E. M., & Leiserowitz, A. (2017). Predictors of Trust in the General Science and Climate Science Research of US Federal Agencies. Public Understanding of Science, 26, 843-860. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662516636040
[25]
Nadelson, L., Jorcyk, C., Yang, D., Smith, M. J., Matson, S., Cornell, K. et al. (2014). I Just Don’t Trust Them: The Development and Validation of an Assessment Instrument to Measure Trust in Science and Scientists. School Science and Mathematics, 114, 76-86. https://doi.org/10.1111/ssm.12051
[26]
National Council for Science and Technology Communication (NCSTC) (2022). https://dst.gov.in/scientific-programmes/st-and-socio-economic-development/national-council-science-technology-communication-ncstc
[27]
Network of Organizations for Science and Technology Communication (NOSTC) (2022). https://nostc.in/
[28]
Nisbet, M. C., & Scheufele, D. A. (2009). What’s Next for Science Communication? American Journal of Botany, 96, 1767-1778. https://doi.org/10.3732/ajb.0900041
[29]
Peter, F. (2017). Political Legitimacy. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2017/entries/legitimacy/
[30]
Russell, A. W. (2013). Improving Legitimacy in Nanotechnology Policy Development through Stakeholder and Community Engagement: Forging New Pathway. Review of Policy Research, 30, 566-587. https://doi.org/10.1111/ropr.12037
[31]
Sánchez-Mora, M. C. (2016). Towards a Taxonomy for Public Communication of Science Activities. Journal of Science Communication, 15, Article No. Y01. https://doi.org/10.22323/2.15020401
[32]
Stocklmayer, S. M. (2013). Engagement with Science: Models of Science Communication. In J. K. Gilbert, & S. M. Stocklmayer (Eds), Communication and Engagement with Science and Technology: Issues and Dilemmas. Routledge.
[33]
van der Bles, A. M., van der Linden, S., Freeman, A. L., Mitchell, J., Galvao, A. B., Zaval, L., & Spiegelhalter, D. J. (2019). Communicating Uncertainty about Facts, Numbers and Science. Royal Society Open Science, 6, Article ID: 181870. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.181870
[34]
Weingart, P., & Guenther, L. (2016). Science Communication and the Issue of Trust. Journal of Science Communication, 15, Article No. C01. https://doi.org/10.22323/2.15050301 http://jcom.sissa.it/archive/15/05/JCOM_1505_2016_C00/JCOM_1505_2016_C01
[35]
Winter, S, Kramer, N. C., Rosner, L., & Neubaum, G. (2015). Don’t Keep It (Too) Simple: How Textual Representations of Scientific Uncertainty Affect Laypersons’ Attitudes. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 34, 251-272. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X14555872
