The meeting arrives at a moment when the geosciences are increasingly central to public debates about climate, water, minerals, and planetary exploration. Denver offers an unusually fitting stage for those discussions. The city sits at the foot of the Colorado Rockies, a range that geologists still regard as one of the most puzzling mountain systems on Earth, and the region carries both a rich mining heritage and some of the nation’s most pressing water challenges. Meeting organizers have built the program around three interlocking themes: Celebrating a Century of Continental Drift: Understanding Earth in Motion; Riverscapes in Transition: Dynamics, Hazards, and Human Futures; and Innovations in Exploration from Deep Earth to Deep Space. According to GSA, these themes are three tines on the same fork, separate yet interrelated, working together toward a shared goal of understanding and appreciating the workings of Earth and other planets.

The continental drift theme marks a century since the scientific community began to accept that continents move, an idea that transformed geology from a static science into a dynamic one. Sessions under this theme will revisit how plate tectonics is understood today, including a Pardee Keynote Symposium titled Bottoms Up: Perspectives from “Bottom-up” and “Top-down” Approaches to Tectonic Reconstructions, which will examine competing methods for reconstructing ancient configurations of Earth’s surface. The riverscapes theme, meanwhile, addresses how rivers and their corridors are changing under the combined pressures of natural dynamics and human activity, a topic with direct implications for flood hazards, water supply, and ecosystem management.

The third theme extends the meeting’s reach beyond Earth itself. Innovations in Exploration from Deep Earth to Deep Space will highlight research that spans from the planet’s interior to other worlds, reflecting a growing overlap between terrestrial geology and planetary science. That connection will be on prominent display in the noontime lecture series. On Monday, 12 October, Kelsey Young will deliver a lecture titled Artemis II to the Moon and Back: The First Step in a New Era of Crewed Scientific Exploration, with a livestream available for remote audiences. The talk arrives as NASA’s Artemis program prepares to return astronauts to the Moon, a mission profile in which field geology expertise plays a central role.

The Pardee Keynote Symposia, among the most closely watched sessions at any GSA meeting, will cover an unusually broad sweep of contemporary issues this year. In addition to the tectonic reconstructions session, the lineup includes Geoheritage Values in a World of Resource Extraction; Mineral Resources and Society; and From Deep Earth to Digital Twins: Artificial Intelligence and Predictive Groundwater in Earth System Science. The latter session signals how machine learning and digital modeling are entering mainstream hydrogeology, offering new tools for predicting groundwater behavior in systems that are increasingly stressed by drought and demand. The mineral resources sessions arrive as governments and industries worldwide confront supply chains for critical minerals needed for batteries, electronics, and renewable energy infrastructure.

Several distinguished lectures round out the scientific program. GSA President Glenn Thackray will deliver the Presidential Address, The Many Paths of Geoscientists, at noon on Sunday, 11 October, followed by the society’s Awards Ceremony, both of which will be livestreamed. The Michael T. Halbouty Distinguished Lecture will be given by Dr. Paul Doss, whose talk is titled Geologists in the Critical Zone…in a Critical Time, a reference to the near-surface zone where rock, soil, water, air, and living organisms interact and where many of society’s environmental challenges play out. On Tuesday, 13 October, Marilyn Russell and Sabrina Kainz will present a noontime lecture titled Connecting People to Place: A Community Engagement Model for Advancing Geoheritage Stewardship, also with a livestream available.

Organizers have also prepared topical sessions aimed specifically at journalists and public information officers covering critical subjects, with curated resources on fire, climate change, volcanoes, and planetary geology, along with a complete list of technical sessions for those planning their coverage. The science communication offerings are particularly strong this year. On Sunday, 11 October at 5 p.m., a panel discussion titled From Research to Bookshelf: Bringing Science to the Public will be moderated by GeoGirl Rachel Phillips and will feature authors Amy Atwater of The Fossil Keeper’s Treasure, Paul Bierman of When the Ice Is Gone, David Montgomery of ReGen, and Rob Thomas of GSA’s Montana Rocks!, with a book signing to follow. On Monday, 12 October at 4 p.m., Bierman will host a screening of the Emmy Award–winning film The Memory of Darkness, Light, and Ice, based on his book When the Ice Is Gone, followed by a discussion and book signing.

Eligibility for media credentials is clearly defined. Working press includes journalists, photographers, videographers, bloggers, authors, and filmmakers representing bona fide news media organizations, who must present a press card, letter, or business card from their publication. Freelance science writers must show a current membership card from organizations such as NASW, ISWA, regional affiliates, CSWA, ACS, ABSW, or EUSJA, along with evidence of science reporting published in 2024, 2025, or 2026; the society notes that authorship on technical research does not qualify for press credentials. Public information officers from scientific societies, educational institutions, and government agencies are also eligible. All press registrations are issued at the discretion of the GSA Press Office and are non-transferable.

Working media receive complimentary registration, which permits access to technical sessions, the exhibit hall, and the on-site Media Resource Center, a pressroom reserved exclusively for working press to conduct interviews, write stories, and take a break between sessions, with coffee and snacks available and a welcome gift for pre-registered attendees. Media preregistration is encouraged before Friday, 2 October 2026, with onsite registration available afterward by contacting the GSA press office. Presenters who are also journalists must pay the standard meeting registration fee, and journalists and PIOs must pay for any additional events they wish to attend. Media representatives may book hotel rooms at their own expense within GSA hotel blocks. Reporters unable to attend in person can register to receive press releases, daily tip sheets, and livestream information for the noontime lectures, ensuring that the meeting’s science reaches audiences far beyond Denver.

Subject of Research: Media registration for the Geological Society of America's GSA Connects 2026 annual geoscience meeting in Denver

Article Title: Media Invitation: GSA Connects 2026 in Denver

Article References: Media Invitation: GSA Connects 2026 in Denver. (n.d.). Original publication

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: Not provided

Keywords: GSA Connects 2026, Geological Society of America, geoscience, Denver, continental drift, riverscapes, planetary exploration, Artemis II, groundwater, mineral resources, science communication, media registration

The argument rests on a fundamental rethinking of how knowledge moves between research, governance, and the public. Traditional models of science–policy interaction assumed a linear pipeline: researchers produce facts, experts distill them into advice, and decision-makers apply that advice to problems. In this view, controversy represents contamination—value-laden disputes intruding on value-free facts. Yet decades of research in science and technology studies have demonstrated that the linear model rarely describes how policy actually works. Food systems are what scholars call wicked problems: they involve multiple legitimate perspectives, deep uncertainty, contested values, and tightly coupled social, ecological, and economic dimensions. No amount of data alone can settle questions such as how much land should be devoted to livestock farming or whether gene-edited crops should fall under the same regulations as transgenic organisms. These questions demand deliberation, and deliberation is inherently contested.

Seen through this lens, controversy is not noise obscuring the scientific signal; it is a signal in its own right. Controversies reveal where public concerns genuinely lie, where evidence is thin or contested, where institutions have lost trust, and where policy frameworks have failed to keep pace with technological or social change. When scientists and scientific advisory bodies retreat from controversy, they leave a vacuum that is quickly filled by less rigorous voices: industry lobbying campaigns, activist absolutism, conspiracy theories, and misinformation. The withdrawal of credible expertise from contested terrain does not depoliticize the debate; it simply removes the most careful participants from it. Conversely, when scientists enter controversies with humility about uncertainty and openness about values, they can elevate the quality of the entire conversation.

Concrete examples abound across the food domain. The prolonged European disputes over glyphosate herbicides, for instance, initially saw scientific assessment agencies produce technically sound but socially tone-deaf evaluations, triggering accusations of capture and conspiracy that eroded trust in regulatory science. Subsequent rounds of assessment placed far greater emphasis on transparency, on independent scrutiny of industry data, and on direct public engagement—an approach widely credited with partially restoring legitimacy even among skeptics. Similarly, debates over Golden Rice and other biofortified crops demonstrated that resistance was often rooted not in ignorance of the science but in legitimate concerns about corporate control of seed systems and the adequacy of technological fixes for problems of poverty and distribution. Researchers and institutions that acknowledged these concerns, rather than dismissing opponents as anti-science, found more productive pathways toward deployment and policy acceptance.

The mechanisms by which engagement strengthens science–policy–society interfaces are increasingly well understood. First, controversy forces articulation. When researchers must defend and explain their findings to skeptical publics, they are compelled to clarify assumptions, expose uncertainties, and distinguish firmly established results from contested interpretations. This process frequently improves the science itself, identifying blind spots and untested assumptions that would otherwise remain hidden. Second, controversy builds trust through visibility. Public trust in science is less a product of deference to authority than of demonstrated reliability, openness, and responsiveness. Scientists who engage critics directly, admit errors when they occur, and update positions as evidence evolves signal these qualities far more effectively than institutions that communicate only through polished consensus documents.

Third, engagement surfaces the value questions that linear models suppress. Questions about food are never purely technical. Whether a society should prioritize yields, environmental resilience, animal welfare, rural livelihoods, or consumer choice is a matter of values, and pretending otherwise breeds cynicism. Structured engagement with controversy allows these values to be named and negotiated explicitly, in formats such as citizen assemblies, deliberative mapping exercises, participatory technology assessment, and multi-stakeholder platforms. In several countries, such deliberative processes have reshaped national food strategies, demonstrating that citizens can grapple responsibly with complexity when given genuine influence and adequate information. Science contributes the evidence base; deliberation weighs the trade-offs; policy reflects the negotiated outcome. Each element is stronger because the others are present.

None of this implies that engagement is easy or risk-free. Scientists who enter contested arenas face harassment, organized campaigns against their reputations, and the temptation to overstate certainty in defense of their position. Institutional incentives, including funding structures and publication metrics, rarely reward time spent on policy engagement or public deliberation. Early-career researchers in particular may fear professional consequences for taking public positions, however carefully qualified. Moreover, engagement can be weaponized: bad-faith actors may exploit scientists’ willingness to debate to manufacture false balance or to launder fringe claims with borrowed credibility. These risks are real, and ignoring them would itself be a failure of rigor.

The response, however, is not withdrawal but strategic and institutionalized engagement. That means equipping researchers with training in communication, negotiation, and the sociology of controversy; providing legal and institutional protection for scientists who face retaliation; building dedicated boundary organizations and knowledge broker roles that mediate between research, policy, and publics; and designing advisory processes that are transparent about whose interests are represented and how value judgments enter assessments. It also means diversifying who speaks for science. Controversies over food disproportionately affect farmers, Indigenous communities, low-income consumers, and food workers, yet these groups are chronically underrepresented in expert panels. Interfaces that incorporate this diversity are not just more legitimate; they are epistemically richer, drawing on experiential and local knowledge that formal science often misses, from farmers’ tacit understanding of soil and weather to community knowledge of food access barriers.

The scholarly case for embracing controversy also carries implications for how scientific institutions measure success. If the goal of science–policy–society interfaces is not merely the transfer of information but the cultivation of shared understanding and durable decisions, then indicators such as citation counts or the volume of policy briefs produced are poor measures of effectiveness. More meaningful metrics include the extent to which advisory processes are trusted by contested stakeholders, whether deliberative outputs actually influence legislation, how controversies evolve over successive episodes, and whether previously polarized positions converge toward workable compromises. Longitudinal studies of food governance suggest that interfaces built on engagement and deliberation are more resilient across political cycles than those built on technocratic authority, which tend to collapse whenever political power shifts against them.

Ultimately, the argument reframes one of the oldest tensions in the relationship between science and society. Food system controversies are not temporary disruptions on the road to a settled consensus; they are permanent features of democratic governance over matters that touch everyone, three times a day. A science system that treats them as threats will retreat into irrelevance, ceding the terrain to those least equipped to navigate complexity. A science system that treats them as opportunities—moments to clarify, to listen, to deliberate, and to rebuild trust—can transform conflict into a generative force for better policy and a more food-secure, sustainable, and equitable world. The evidence increasingly suggests that the second path is not merely more virtuous but more effective, and that the future of evidence-informed food governance depends on scientists willing to meet controversy where it lives: in the public square.

Subject of Research: The role of scientists' engagement in food system controversies in strengthening science–policy–society interfaces

Article Title: Engagement in food system-related controversies can strengthen science–policy–society interfaces

Article References: Engagement in food system-related controversies can strengthen science–policy–society interfaces. (n.d.). https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-026-01416-y

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: 10.1038/s43016-026-01416-y

Keywords: food systems, science policy, controversies, public engagement, deliberation, trust in science, evidence-based policy, food governance, wicked problems, science communication, stakeholder participation, sustainability

Behind the program are Phillip Myer and Jennie Ivey, both professors in the UT Department of Animal Science, who have secured a $750,000 grant from the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture to fund the project over five years. Their central premise is that scientific training alone is insufficient. Students must also learn how knowledge moves out of the laboratory and into the field, where it influences livestock management, animal welfare and the economic viability of farms. By deliberately fusing these domains within a single fellowship, the program aims to produce graduates who can generate, translate and communicate science with equal confidence.

Recruitment will be national in scope, drawing applicants from animal science, agricultural and related life science programs across the country. Once selected, fellows will embark on a year-long sequence combining virtual and in-person experiences, each anchored in one of six focus areas: animal nutrition; livestock production, robotics and automation; livestock gene editing and genomics; animal disease, immunology and parasitism; animal welfare; or animal reproduction. These tracks reflect the scientific frontiers where animal agriculture is changing fastest, from precision feeding strategies to genome editing tools that promise healthier, more productive herds.

One of the program’s most distinctive features is its integrated mentoring model. Rather than pairing each student with a single advisor, F.U.S.E. assigns every fellow a team that includes research faculty, Extension faculty, a graduate student mentor and a county Extension agent. This structure exposes students to the full arc of agricultural science: the design of experiments, the interpretation of data and the practical challenge of delivering findings to producers, industry representatives and other stakeholders who will ultimately apply them. Mentors from different professional backgrounds will model the collaboration that modern agricultural problem-solving increasingly requires.

Myer emphasizes the broader stakes of the effort. By strengthening the pipeline of well-trained animal science professionals, he notes, the program will support not only agriculture itself but also the local communities, economies and food systems that depend on a skilled and innovative workforce. Ivey adds that the project will train undergraduates through mentored research, farm-based experiences and Extension activities that translate science into practical solutions for producers and stakeholders. Together, their vision positions the fellowship as an investment in rural resilience as much as in individual careers.

The technical training embedded in the fellowship is deliberately comprehensive. Fellows will receive hands-on instruction in experimental design, data collection and analysis, animal management, scientific writing and science communication. They will also work alongside Extension professionals during farm visits, production-site experiences and outreach programming, and will contribute to the development of Extension materials used with real audiences. The experience culminates in an intensive summer research and Extension residency in which students finalize their projects, sharpen their communication skills and engage directly with animal agriculture professionals, ensuring that no fellow completes the program without having presented and defended their work in professional settings.

Networking opportunities form another pillar of the program. Fellows will prepare scientific abstracts and presentations and will have opportunities to present their research at the American Society of Animal Science Annual Meeting, one of the field’s most important gatherings, as well as at a dedicated F.U.S.E. Animal Science Conference hosted by UTIA. These venues will connect students with scientists, Extension specialists, industry representatives and other leaders across animal agriculture, giving early-career undergraduates access to professional networks that typically take years to build. Recruitment for the first cohort is expected to begin in January 2027, with the inaugural fellows starting their experience later that year.

The F.U.S.E. award is part of a considerably larger federal commitment: an $8.8 million investment by USDA-NIFA in Research and Extension Experiences for Undergraduates, or REEU. That national program funds experiential learning opportunities that help undergraduates develop the technical, professional and leadership skills needed for careers in food and agriculture or for continued study in graduate and professional programs. F.U.S.E. Animal Science advances these goals by intentionally integrating research and Extension training within a single year-long fellowship, a design its creators argue is rarer than it should be in undergraduate agricultural education.

The program’s leaders bring complementary expertise to the effort. Myer’s research focuses on gut microbiology in beef cattle, with particular emphasis on the rumen microbiome and its significance for feed efficiency and nutritional physiology. He helped create rumenmicrobes.utk.edu, a public resource explaining the science of microorganisms and animal nutrition, and earned his B.S. in biology from Bradley University in 2008 and his Ph.D. in microbiology from Purdue University in 2013. He subsequently worked as a postdoctoral researcher at the USDA-ARS U.S. Meat Animal Research Center from 2013 to 2015, studying gut microbiome impacts on nutrition and feed efficiency in finishing beef steers, and currently serves as Director of Graduate Studies for the UT Department of Animal Science.

Ivey completed a B.S. in equine science at Rutgers University in 2009 before earning her M.S. and Ph.D. at West Virginia University, where she studied equine nutrition and exercise physiology. Her research and Extension interests center on nutritional, exercise and management interventions that improve equine well-being, along with the influence of owner knowledge on equine management. She serves on the Equine Health Advisory Commission for the Tennessee Department of Agriculture and on the Board of Directors for the National Association of Equine Affiliated Academics. Together with the broader University of Tennessee Institute of Agriculture, which comprises the Herbert College of Agriculture, the UT College of Veterinary Medicine, UT AgResearch and UT Extension, the two professors hope F.U.S.E. will become a national model for how land-grant institutions prepare students to carry agricultural science from the bench to the barn and beyond.

Subject of Research: An undergraduate fellowship integrating animal science research and Extension training at the University of Tennessee

Article Title: UTIA launches fellowship to prepare future animal science professionals

Article References: UTIA launches fellowship to prepare future animal science professionals. (n.d.). Original publication

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: Not provided

Keywords: animal science, undergraduate fellowship, USDA NIFA, Extension, University of Tennessee, research training, livestock, REEU, science communication, agricultural workforce, mentoring, professional development

The distinction at the heart of the research is a familiar one to methodologists but often blurred in practice: a correlational study, however sophisticated, cannot on its own establish that manipulating one variable will produce a change in another. Yet the authors found that published papers routinely slide from cautious statistical language into confident causal assertions, particularly in abstracts, discussion sections and press-facing summaries. These subtle shifts — from “is associated with” to “leads to” or “causes” — can occur without any additional evidence being presented.

Using large language models as scalable annotation tools, the research team systematically screened social science publications for causal language and evaluated whether that language exceeded what the underlying research designs could justify. The computational analysis revealed that overreaching causal claims are not rare outliers but a common feature of the literature. More strikingly, the prevalence of such claims has grown over time, suggesting that the problem is not simply a legacy of older publishing norms but an ongoing trend in how social scientists communicate their findings.

The methodological significance of using large language models for this kind of work deserves attention. Annotating scientific text for causal overclaiming has traditionally required teams of trained human coders, making large-scale audits expensive and slow. By validating machine-generated judgments against experimental benchmarks, the researchers were able to process a volume of literature that would have been impractical to assess manually, opening the door to routine monitoring of claim strength across entire fields.

But the study did not stop at measuring prevalence. A second strand of the research asked a consequential question: does causal overclaiming actually matter to readers? Through controlled experiments, the team demonstrated that overreaching claims do influence how people interpret research findings. Readers exposed to causal phrasing drew stronger conclusions than the evidence warranted, a distortion that could propagate through policy debates, media coverage and subsequent scholarship.

In a finding with implications for the rapidly changing information ecosystem, the researchers showed that large language models are also susceptible. When trained or prompted with overreaching causal statements, these systems inherited and reproduced the exaggerated causal interpretations. Given that such models increasingly mediate public access to scientific knowledge — summarizing papers, answering questions and generating secondary content — this mechanism could amplify overclaiming well beyond the original readership of any single article.

The study builds on a rich tradition of scholarship concerned with the integrity of scientific communication. Earlier work by Tal Yarkoni on the “generalizability crisis” argued that rhetorical claims in psychology are often disconnected from the empirical evidence that supports them, with abstract theoretical statements dressed up as concrete findings. Duncan Watts has similarly argued that sociological explanations frequently conflate what is intuitively understandable with what is causally established, and a 2018 review by Isabelle Boutron and Philippe Ravaud documented systematic misrepresentation and distortion of research in the biomedical literature, showing that spin in scientific reporting is not unique to the social sciences.

Why does causal overclaiming persist and even grow? The authors and the surrounding literature point to a confluence of incentives. Journals and media favor findings that sound decisive; hedged language can seem weak or unremarkable; and researchers face pressure to demonstrate the real-world significance of their work. Compounding this, the underlying measurement and design problems in social science are genuinely difficult, as recent arguments for integrative experiment design emphasize — high-complexity problem spaces demand new empirical strategies that many existing studies were not built to provide. In that environment, a modest correlational result can be nudged, sentence by sentence, into a causal story.

The consequences extend beyond academic disputes. Social science findings inform education policy, economic regulation, public health guidance and organizational practice. When a policy is justified by a causal claim that rests on correlational evidence, interventions may fail or misfire, and public trust in science erodes when confident predictions do not materialize. Faithful science communication, as codified in norms for the science of science communication, depends on the claim strength of a summary matching the strength of the underlying evidence — a standard the new study suggests is routinely violated.

The findings arrive at a moment when the volume of scientific publishing and the rise of AI-mediated reading make the problem harder to contain — and when the same computational tools that revealed the problem may help solve it. Large language models could be deployed not only to detect overclaiming in manuscripts before publication but also to help authors recalibrate their language, and to ensure that AI systems summarizing research preserve rather than inflate the evidential caution of the original work. The study’s message is ultimately corrective rather than condemnatory: the social sciences can produce valuable knowledge even from imperfect designs, provided the language used to describe that knowledge stays within the bounds of what the evidence supports.

Subject of Research: The prevalence and impact of overreaching causal claims in social science research publications

Article Title: Causal overclaiming is widespread in the social sciences

Article References: Causal overclaiming is widespread in the social sciences. (2026). Nature Human Behaviour. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-026-02552-y

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: 10.1038/s41562-026-02552-y

Keywords: causal overclaiming, social sciences, large language models, research integrity, science communication, correlational evidence, misrepresentation, Nature Human Behaviour, causal inference, scientific publishing, AI interpretation, research methods

In a novel survey-based experiment, researchers Dara Wald, associate professor, and Shumaila Bhatti, postdoctoral fellow, both from Virginia Tech’s School of Public and International Affairs, categorized the American public into five distinct groups according to how they perceive scientists’ credibility: enthusiasts, optimists, moderates, skeptics, and estranged. These groups differ significantly not only in how much they trust scientists but also in their support for science-driven environmental and health policies, as well as their political and demographic profiles.

The study highlights a critical communication gap: while scientists often rely on their expertise and factual knowledge to convey credibility, the public’s trust is more strongly influenced by perceived intentions and whether scientists are seen as genuinely pursuing the common good. “Science communication traditionally focuses on competence and research findings, but the public also demands transparency about the purposes and values guiding the science,” said Bhatti.

To probe these dynamics, the researchers exposed participants to articles covering both a non-controversial issue (salmonella) and a politically charged topic (heatwaves) and assessed how perceived credibility shifted across contexts. Results showed substantial variation: for example, moderates were contextually engaged, showing support in some cases but skepticism in others, while skeptics and the estranged groups consistently distrusted scientific motives and institutions.

Such divisions are not inconsequential. Wald explains, “For urgent threats like flood warnings, public trust in the motivations behind scientific advice is vital. Without trust, people may ignore warnings meant to protect lives and property—regardless of the scientific accuracy.” The findings suggest that addressing these motivational perceptions could improve public engagement with science, fostering more effective policy support and health behaviors.

The researchers call for scientists to broaden their communication strategies beyond explaining the “what” of their research to also communicating the “why”—the ethical commitments and intentions that drive their work. This nuanced approach may help bridge the disconnect and create more inclusive science communication that resonates with diverse audiences.

In sum, this pioneering work deconstructs the monolithic view of “the public” and underscores the importance of addressing motivational credibility as a cornerstone of building public trust in science. It opens the door to more tailored communication strategies that meet the public’s expectations, potentially transforming how science interfaces with society.

Funding was provided by the National Science Foundation and the National Institutes of Health, supporting the project’s focus on refining our understanding of public trust in scientific institutions.

Subject of Research: Public perceptions of scientists’ credibility and motivations
Article Title: There is not one public: divergent perceptions of scientists’ source credibility in the United States
News Publication Date: July 10, 2026
Web References: http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/s41599-026-07609-x
Image Credits: Photos courtesy of Dara Wald and Shumaila Bhatti
Keywords: Science communication, Science policy, Environmental policy, Perception, Public trust

The research, spanning four distinct studies involving approximately 55,000 participants, demonstrates a consistent pattern: when both scientific experts and everyday people align in support of a solution, the public’s willingness to act increases significantly. This effect was observed across a broad spectrum of issues, including climate change policies, electric vehicle adoption, sustainable food sources, vaccination uptake, AI governance, misinformation management, and data privacy concerns.

The study employed rigorous experimental methods, combining online experiments where participants selected between competing policies or products based on the groups endorsing them, with real-world interventions such as charitable donations to nonprofits and engagement with targeted social media advertisements. This mixed-methods approach bolstered the validity of the findings, pointing to a robust psychological mechanism underpinning public action: trust in the concordance of expert and social consensus overrides resistance or skepticism generated by governmental and industrial dissent.

Lead author Anandita Sabherwal noted that these results challenge prevailing notions that institutional failure necessarily leads to public apathy. Instead, the alignment between scientific authorities and the broader community can serve as a potent mobilizing force. This suggests that grassroots and expert coalitions may be key to overcoming stagnation and inertia in confronting environmental, health, and technological crises.

Senior author Gregg Sparkman emphasized the nuance that, although institutions like governments and corporations hold structural power, their failure to act does not equate to a loss of public agency. The data reveal an empowering narrative where the collective voice—scientific and social—fosters meaningful change even without top-down leadership.

Looking ahead, the research team plans to extend these investigations cross-culturally, examining how varying degrees of institutional trust impact the relative influence of experts and citizens globally. Such comparative studies will further elucidate whether the efficacy of combined scientific and social consensus is universally applicable or context-dependent.

This work advances our understanding of societal dynamics in an era marked by institutional distrust and information overload. It underscores the critical role that transparent, joint signaling from credible experts and engaged citizens plays in galvanizing public action on complex challenges, offering a strategic pathway for advocates and policymakers aiming to mobilize change.

Subject of Research: People
Article Title: Combined signals of scientific and social consensus best mobilize action on societal challenges even if government and industry oppose
News Publication Date: 13-Jul-2026
Keywords: public mobilization, scientific consensus, social consensus, environmental policy, health behavior, technology adoption, institutional trust

This study delves deeply into the critical, yet often overlooked role of science journalists who serve as intermediaries between the scientific community and the public. Unlike earlier research primarily focused on public opinion metrics, this observational study employs means such as focus groups and expert interviews with 87 information professionals—including science journalists, institutional communicators, and researchers—to capture nuanced perceptions of trust and media dynamics. Such a methodological approach offers fresh insight into how journalistic practices, media ecosystems, and sociopolitical contexts intersect to shape the public’s relationship with science.

The country-specific media ecosystems analyzed demonstrate striking differences. Germany exhibits a relatively robust institutional infrastructure, with dedicated science desks found across major public broadcasters and reputed media houses. This institutional stability also promotes stronger professional networks and fact-checking regimes, which contribute to mitigating the sensationalism often associated with tabloid-style reporting. Conversely, Italy’s landscape suffers from fragmentation: limited stable employment for science journalists, a proliferation of freelancers, and a general undervaluation of specialized science reporting. A participant from Italy poignantly described science journalism as a luxury item, grabbing attention primarily during crises but otherwise marginalized in the media diet. Lithuania’s small market size and post-communist historical legacies further complicate the picture, where specialist science reporters are scarce, and science coverage typically falls to generalist journalists or academic collaborators.

A salient theme emerging from the discussions is the profound impact of growing ideological polarization on the public’s reception of scientific information. Journalists across all three countries highlighted how audience members no longer process scientific facts through an objective lens but instead filter the information through political identities and emotional affiliations. This phenomenon complicates the task of science communicators, who must now operate within a fragmented societal fabric where factual correctness alone does not guarantee credibility or acceptance.

The study also sheds light on the evolving journalistic workflow shaped by the rapid cadence of online news consumption. Participants criticize what they refer to as a reactive journalism paradigm, characterized by short-term, contingency-driven coverage that prioritizes sensational topics with high click potential, such as pandemic crises, at the expense of providing sustained, well-contextualized reporting on enduring scientific challenges. This digital-first editorial logic, in which online audience metrics dictate print agenda-setting, creates feedback loops that marginalize less-clickworthy but scientifically vital topics like climate change, contributing to a decline in public familiarity and, potentially, trust.

Importantly, the research underscores that the commodification of digital attention has unintended consequences beyond mere topic selection. When key scientific issues become overshadowed by misinformation and “alternative” narratives that exploit audience fatigue and ideological biases, pseudoscience gains fertile ground to spread. Journalists expressed concerns regarding the erosion of shared epistemic frameworks, warning that limited long-form investigative reporting allows misinformation to fill informational voids, undermining evidence-based understandings.

Against this backdrop, the role of systemic support structures emerged as a central factor influencing science journalism’s ability to foster trust. Rather than attributing trust-building solely to individual reporter skill or isolated story quality, participants emphasized the necessity for broader institutional frameworks. These include sustainable funding mechanisms, such as those underpinning public-service media, dedicated science desks, fact-checking units, investigative funds, and robust professional networks that bolster journalistic capacity and independence. Germany’s relatively more developed support ecosystem was cited as enabling more resilient journalistic practice that can withstand market pressures and short-term digital trends.

Another transformative insight from the study pertains to the evolving self-conception of journalists as active “trust brokers”—a role that transcends traditional notions of objective information conveyance. Journalists increasingly perceive their mission as mediators who cultivate dialogue, facilitate public engagement, and foster trust not through mere transmission of facts, but via relational and co-creative processes. This reframing signals an implicit shift towards participatory science communication, where journalists embrace transparency, humility, and audience interaction to reinforce the social contract underlying their profession.

To enact this vision, the respondents advocate for news formats that blend interactivity and collaboration. They cited emerging experimental models such as podcasts with live Q&A, digital communities for collective sensemaking, and platform-adapted content that retains scientific integrity while meeting audiences where they already are. While acknowledging these approaches are no panacea, journalists agree that moving beyond one-way dissemination towards dialogic engagement is essential for sustaining warranted trust in science in digitally mediated societies.

This comprehensive study thus reframes the conversation on public trust in science by centering the voices and experiences of science communicators themselves, revealing a richly textured interplay of media structures, societal contexts, and journalistic innovation. In doing so, it challenges simplistic narratives about a uniform breakdown of trust and instead presents trust as an emergent, negotiated condition contingent on intricate socio-political and technological factors. The research calls for policy and institutional responses that recognize trust as a systemic attribute necessitating long-term investment in robust communication ecosystems.

As we face accelerating scientific and environmental challenges globally, these findings provide crucial insights for stakeholders seeking to bolster the public’s engagement with science. They highlight the necessity of supporting infrastructures that empower journalists as facilitators of mediated trust, while encouraging new media forms that foster mutual understanding and co-creation between scientists, journalists, and diverse publics. Ultimately, sustaining science’s social legitimacy requires embracing complexity, resisting reductive narratives, and fostering resilient communication pathways attuned to the evolving digital age.

Subject of Research: Science communication, public trust in science, role of science journalists, media ecosystems in Germany, Italy, and Lithuania

Article Title: Science journalists and public trust: comparative insights from Germany, Italy, and Lithuania

News Publication Date: 22-Sep-2025

Image Credits: ITAS

Keywords: Science journalism, Science advocacy, Science communication, Communications, Mass media, Written communication, Social studies of science

Stokes’ work transcends academia, as she regularly contributes articles to major publications like The New York Times, The Atlantic, and The Washington Post. These articles are designed not merely to inform but to inspire readers to engage with climate-related issues. She also co-hosts the acclaimed podcast “A Matter of Degrees,” alongside climate activist Katharine Wilkinson. Through this platform, they examine the multifaceted drivers of climate change while exploring actionable solutions to one of the most critical issues facing humanity. Their discussions encourage a wide audience to grasp the urgency of climate action and advocate for effective policies.

In recognition of her distinctive contributions to climate science communication, Leah Stokes has been awarded the prestigious 2024 Schneider Award for Outstanding Climate Science Communication from ClimateOne. This honor, named after the late climate scientist Stephen H. Schneider, acknowledges individuals who have made significant scientific contributions while effectively articulating complex concepts to broader audiences. Stokes expressed her gratitude for being associated with past awardees, including renowned climate communicators like Katherine Hayhoe and Naomi Oreskes. For her, the recognition serves as a reminder of her responsibility to simplify complicated climate issues so they can be better understood by the general public, thereby encouraging meaningful action.

As a leading voice in environmental politics, Leah Stokes holds the title of Anton Vonk Associate Professor in the UCSB Department of Political Science. She emphasizes that understanding climate issues is crucial for public engagement and advocacy. In her words, “When people understand an issue, they’re more likely to take action.” This philosophy rings particularly true in the context of an increasingly urgent climate crisis, where the involvement of the public is vital to creating sustainable solutions. Her passion for effective communication is matched only by her commitment to scientific integrity, blending an academic perspective with a sense of urgency.

One of Stokes’ notable initiatives at UCSB is the 2035 Initiative, an interdisciplinary collaboration aimed at addressing climate policy by incorporating insights from various fields. The mission is daring yet clear: to develop actionable roadmaps for reducing climate pollution and enhancing community resilience within the next ten years. This project highlights her belief in the necessity of collective action to tackle climate challenges. It emphasizes the importance of scholarly collaboration in formulating practical and enforceable policies that can lead to meaningful change in the immediate future.

Stokes’ approach is guided by her philosophy of community engagement over solitary effort. She argues that focusing excessively on personal environmental footprints can obscure the more significant impact of collective action. This perspective is grounded in the belief that real transformation occurs when individuals and communities unite to leverage their combined strength. “It’s not about doing everything perfectly on your own — it’s about joining forces and building the future that we want to see,” she asserts. This understanding of collective responsibility is essential, especially as society grapples with existential threats posed by climate changes.

In her role as a policy expert and climate activist, Leah Stokes embraces the complexities of her responsibilities, especially as a mother who must advocate for the future of her children. She is currently penning a memoir entitled “The Carbon Wave,” a narrative that blends personal experiences with her journey to promote historic climate legislation. This book seeks to document not just her individual experiences but also those of fellow policy advocates, especially parents who are striving for a sustainable and equitable future. By weaving personal stories with policy discussions, Stokes aims to deliver a compelling message about the power of individual and community action in effecting change.

Reflecting on her career and mission, Stokes acknowledges the importance of hope in addressing climate challenges. She recognizes that discouragement can often impede progress in climate advocacy, which is why she endeavors to communicate a vision of courageous action and resilient communities. Her upcoming book aims to inspire readers to envision the possibilities of collective efforts in combating climate change. Stories of resilience and activism serve as vital counter-narratives to despair, illustrating that positive changes are possible and actionable.

In addition to her academic and advocacy work, Leah Stokes is also recognized for her ability to galvanize younger generations, encouraging them to take climate action seriously. By fostering dialogue and engagement among varied demographics, she creates a sense of shared ownership over climate solutions. She believes that future leaders must be equipped with the knowledge and tools to navigate the complexities of climate politics effectively. This empowers rising activists and policymakers to contribute to the evolving discourse on climate action, ensuring their voices are heard in discussions about sustainability and equity.

Leah Stokes’ dedication extends beyond her immediate professional responsibilities, reflecting a broader commitment to ensure that future generations inherit a world worth living in. By fostering interdisciplinary dialogue and community engagement, she enhances the likelihood of achieving sustainable progress. Her role as an educator, communicator, and advocate for the climate represents a multifaceted approach to tackling one of the greatest challenges of our time. As society stands at a crossroads, individuals like Stokes are crucial in both informing and inspiring collective action toward a sustainable future.

As she navigates the complexities of climate advocacy and policy formation, Leah Stokes remains a guiding force in promoting a clear understanding of environmental issues. Her work emphasizes that while the challenges may seem daunting, victory lies in unity and shared responsibility. The pathway to a sustainable future doesn’t solely lie within individual actions; it resides within collective efforts that harness our combined power to effect significant change. As such, Stokes’ voice, ideas, and initiatives will undoubtedly shape the next stages of climate discourse and activism, illuminating the potential for a healthier planet.

The essence of Leah Stokes’ mission is about not merely understanding climate science but translating that knowledge into actionable steps that individual citizens, communities, and policymakers can take. It highlights the importance of messaging, education, and collaboration in forging alliances needed to enact effective climate policy. The urgency of the climate crisis demands not just aware citizens but equipped ones who understand the levers of change available to them. Therefore, as Stokes continues her work in academia and activism, her insights will be vital in navigating the ever-evolving landscape of climate action, leading society toward a brighter, more sustainable future.

Subject of Research: Climate Science Communication and Environmental Policy
Article Title: Leah Stokes: Bridging Science and Engagement in Climate Policy
News Publication Date: October 2023
Web References: Not applicable
References: Not applicable
Image Credits: Matt Perko
Keywords: Climate Change, Environmental Politics, Renewable Energy, Climate Advocacy, Academic Research, Schneider Award, Community Engagement, Sustainability, Public Policy, Climate Communication, Policy Innovation, Interdisciplinary Collaboration

The study, published in the prestigious journal Nature Human Behavior, combines efforts from a multitude of research institutions, showcasing a collaborative approach to understanding public sentiment toward science. Tim Weninger, a notable contributor to the research and professor at the University of Notre Dame, emphasized the unprecedented nature of this collaborative endeavor in social sciences. This monumental effort highlighted that, contrary to the prevailing belief in a "crisis of trust" in science, a substantial majority of individuals globally exhibit high levels of confidence in scientists.

Among the key findings, researchers noted that 83% of respondents believe that scientists should take it upon themselves to communicate research findings and complex scientific concepts to the public clearly. This desire for engagement underscores a broader expectation that scientists must advocate for transparency and establish a direct line of communication with society. Furthermore, the study found that over half the respondents, approximately 52%, want scientists to have a more influential role in policymaking processes. This reflects a growing recognition of the importance of science-driven policy decisions that can effectively address pressing societal issues like climate change and public health.

Delving deeper into societal shifts, the survey established a connection between demographics and levels of trust in the scientific community. Factors such as gender, age, educational attainment, income level, and urban versus rural residency played crucial roles in shaping perceptions. Notably, trust was observed to be higher among women, older individuals, urban residents, and those with left-leaning political ideologies. Interestingly, the study’s findings challenge preconceived notions that political orientation would consistently influence trust levels; instead, research indicates that such correlations may not be universally applicable across different cultural contexts.

One particularly surprising outcome of the study was the positive correlation between religiosity and trust in science, suggesting that many individuals can reconcile beliefs in science and religion. This finding contests the stereotype of a deep-seated conflict between scientific and religious perspectives, revealing a nuanced landscape in public perceptions of science. Encouragingly, this aspect of the study showcases opportunities for dialogue and collaboration between the scientific community and religious organizations, aiming to promote a shared understanding of factual evidence, especially in times of widespread misinformation.

As the survey shifts its focus to the public’s aspirations for scientists’ roles, it highlights a significant inclination towards addressing global challenges, such as health crises and environmental sustainability. Participants expressed a desire for scientists to prioritize research that enhances public health, alleviates poverty, and tackles energy challenges rather than focusing predominantly on defense-related technologies. This sentiment indicates a clear public appetite for research directed toward social good rather than military advancements, prompting a reevaluation of research funding priorities.

Building upon these findings, the authors of the study argue for a renewed emphasis on scientists’ communication strategies. Enhanced engagement and dialogue between scientists and various public audiences are essential not only to nurture trust but also to cultivate a deeper understanding of scientific processes and findings. The survey advocates for an inclusive approach to science communication, reaching out to diverse demographic groups while paying particular attention to conservative populations in Western nations—an area that has historically seen a significant trust gap in science.

While trust in scientists remains comparatively high, the survey highlights areas for improvement. A significant percentage, around 42%, of respondents felt that scientists are not sufficiently receptive to feedback or open to public input. This insight serves as a warning sign—suggesting that without attentiveness to public sentiment, the fragile bond of trust could face new challenges. Addressing these concerns requires a proactive approach from the scientific community, acknowledging the necessity of active listening and responsiveness to community needs.

The findings from this comprehensive survey illuminate the current landscape of public trust in science against a backdrop of prior studies that previously suggested declining trust levels, particularly in the United States and Europe. The results challenge this narrative by presenting a more optimistic picture of public sentiment. The research encourages scientists to focus on building and fortifying trust through engaging narratives, transparent communication of research, and active participation in matters that resonate with public values and priorities.

In summary, this expansive investigation into the trustworthiness of scientists reinforces the imperative of engagement, communication, and connection between the scientific community and society at large. By embracing an approach grounded in transparency and responsiveness, scientists can enhance their credibility, promote informed public discourse, and foster a culture of collaboration that transcends traditional boundaries.

The implications of this research extend far beyond academic interest; they underscore the critical role scientists play in navigating global challenges and shaping a future that values evidence-based decision-making. As the world faces ongoing issues of climate change, public health crises, and societal disparities, the survey’s findings compel the scientific community to step forward as champions of informed policy and advocates for the common good.

Ongoing public disillusionment with expertise amid the spread of misinformation may make it imperative for scientists to adopt new approaches that prioritize storytelling and emotional resonance in their communication strategies. Engaging the public not just with data but with narratives that resonate on a personal level will be key in maintaining trust and legitimizing the role of science in shaping societal progress.

Ultimately, this study serves as a clarion call for scientists to engage deeply with the communities they serve, reinforcing the importance of dialogue, collaboration, and shared goals. The commitment to fostering trust and understanding relies on recognizing that science doesn’t exist in a vacuum—it thrives in a vibrant ecosystem of communication, education, and proactive outreach. As the scientific community embraces these findings and adapts accordingly, there is hope that greater public engagement will lead to a future where trust in scientists not only persists but flourishes.

Subject of Research: Trust in Scientists
Article Title: Trust in scientists and their role in society across 68 countries
News Publication Date: 20-Jan-2025
Web References: Nature Human Behavior
References: DOI
Image Credits: Photo by Barbara Johnston/University of Notre Dame

Keywords: Trust in science, scientific communication, public engagement, science policy, global perceptions, demographics, societal roles

In activities that may seem as simple as adding salt to water, complex physical phenomena are taking place, leading to the formation of unique, visually appealing patterns—the desire for a beautifully uniform salt ring inside a pasta pan becomes more than just aesthetics; it embodies a physical investigation worth scientific discourse. The researchers delved into what actions—size of salt particles, quantity, and the rate of introduction—could optimally create such a striking halo of sedimentation within the confines of a cooking pot.

The research grew out of an ordinary dinner conversation, revealing how observational humor in the kitchen can spark curiosity and lead to scientific exploration. As the group observed the whitish ring of salt left behind post-cooking, they began to ask intricate questions that would lead them onto a path of investigation involving sedimentation and fluid dynamics. Their experimentation ultimately materialized in a series of simple yet replicable trials, showcasing that kitchen chemistry can open pathways to scientific revelations.

Through their research, the team discovered that when a single salt particle is introduced into a body of water, it immediately succumbs to gravitational forces and begins to settle. This settling process generates localized flow perturbations in the surrounding water, initiating a wake effect that significantly alters the behavior of subsequent particles introduced into the liquid environment. The addition does not merely add a pinch of flavor—it participates in a larger mechanical ballet among the particles.

When multiple particles are released into the water simultaneously, it creates an environment where each particle reacts to the disturbances caused by its neighbors. The cumulative effects of these interactions lead to an expanding circular distribution of particles. This spatial arrangement is particularly interesting as it reveals how initially random placements can organize into striking formations. The collective settling causes the particles to drift horizontally, contributing to the formation of a well-defined ringed structure that is both symmetrical and aesthetically pleasing.

The researchers also emphasized the importance of the height from which the particles are dropped, as well as the amount of water that fills the cooking vessel. When the salt is dropped from a significant height, it allows for a longer sedimentation period, leading to a more pronounced spread of the particle cloud. As the particles tumble downward, they are subject to forces that dictate their movement, interacting with one another until they reach a point where the perturbations are no longer impactful—resulting in a homogeneous deposit at the tank’s bottom.

Mathematics and physics intermingle intimately here; what may appear as simple kitchen routine encapsulates a plethora of underlying physical laws such as sedimentation rates, non-linear fluid dynamics, and collective particle behavior. Each of these factors contributes to the reader’s understanding of how simple observations in daily life can reveal compelling aspects of physical science, a revelation that stands to turn mundane activities into intriguing explorations.

In tandem with this research, the study provides insight into how various sizes of particles behave differently during their settlement processes. Larger particles, according to Souzy, tend to displace more radially compared to their smaller counterparts, effectively creating a natural sorting mechanism. This aspect of the study poses a fascinating challenge for future experiments—what happens when a mixture of different particle sizes is introduced? How can this knowledge be leveraged in practical applications beyond the culinary arts?

The delightful twist in the tale is the realization that one can indeed predict and produce aesthetically appealing salt rings at any culinary occasion, guided by scientific understanding. Souzy himself has found that with his newfound knowledge, the act of preparing pasta now carries with it the potential for scientific experimentation, making each meal an exploration of physical properties.

While many might overlook the intricacies of boiling water and dissolving salt, this research challenges us to rethink daily routines through a scientific lens, inviting curiosity about the forces at play in our kitchens. As researchers like Souzy continue to dig into the science behind everyday actions, perhaps dining experiences might also evolve into something fundamentally more enlightening than mere sustenance.

This intersection of food and physics reflects a growing trend in science communication, where researchers illuminate everyday phenomena that resonate with a broader audience. Capturing the hearts and minds of not just academic circles, but the everyday public is essential for influencing learning and promoting scientific thinking outside laboratory walls.

As the findings of this intriguing study continue to spread throughout the academic community and beyond, the significance of what happens in the kitchen transcends traditional boundaries. It evolves into an opportunity to educate and inspire, proving that sometimes, the most memorable moments in science arise from the simplest of experiences: a shared meal.

Subject of Research: Morphology of Particle Cloud Deposits
Article Title: Salt-ring in your pasta pan: Morphology of particle cloud deposits
News Publication Date: 21-Jan-2025
Web References: Physics of Fluids
References: DOI: 10.1063/5.0239386
Image Credits: Credit: Mathieu Souzy

Keywords

Salts, Foods, Sediment, Sedimentation