Members of the public can disagree with scientists in at least two ways: people can reject well-established scientific theories and they can believe fabricated, deceptive claims about science to be true. Scholars examining the reasons for these disagreements find that some individuals are more likely than others to diverge from scientists because of individual factors such as their science literacy, political ideology, and religiosity. This study builds on this literature by examining the role of conspiracy mentality in these two phenomena. Participants were recruited from a national online panel (N = 513) and in person from the first annual Flat Earth International Conference (N = 21). We found that conspiracy mentality and science literacy both play important roles in believing viral and deceptive claims about science, but evidence for the importance of conspiracy mentality in the rejection of science is much more mixed.

Scientific discovery, especially at the boundaries of human observational capacity, is an extended, incremental and sometimes controversy-laden process; but practicing researchers' published statements do not always portray it as such. If extraterrestrial life (ETL) exists, and if we find it, the process of observation, interpretation, understanding and confirmation may take decades. Though it is, thus, likely that scientific consensus will accrue around an ETL interpretation in a gradual and subtle process, the general public and even practicing scientists often discuss ETL discovery as though it will be rapid and dramatic. To illustrate this phenomenon, this review analyses a convenience sample of astronomers', astrobiologists' and astrosociologists' statements and assumptions in scholarly and general-audience media regarding a prospective discovery of ETL. Of 30 surveyed scholarly studies and 37 surveyed general-audience pieces, 24 scholarly and scientists' perspectives in 32 general-audience pieces do not acknowledge the extended nature of scientific discovery; and only three and four, respectively, do so explicitly. These results suggest that ETL researchers' statements could often portray an inaccurate or at least atypical vision of scientific progress in their own studies and to general-audience media outlets.

Archaeologists often enjoy the role of giving the people what the people want, at least, so long as that is information about the past. But besides the ambition to enlighten people about the past, there are at least two alternative approaches concerning the way archaeology communicates with its publics in society. One considers archaeology a business and sees people as potential customers who need to be persuaded to buy the products of archaeology. Another approach advocates democratic participation of people in archaeology and wishes to accommodate people's own preferences regarding archaeological studies. The point of this article is not to choose between these different models of communication but to ensure that future debates about the relations between archaeology and society will be informed by a better understanding of some fundamentally different approaches concerning the aims and character of archaeology's communication with various public audiences. Hopefully this discussion will also benefit very specific, future projects in public archaeology and thus ultimately serve both the archaeologists and their publics.

In this article I explore attributions of credibility, important to designations of ‘expertise’, within the area of DNA patenting. I define ‘credibility’ as a relationship of recognition people establish to other actors. Through repeated interviews, interspersed with the provision of information, I have identified two different ways in which respondents position themselves in relation other actors as a way of assessing their credibility: when assuming a ‘partisan position’, they explicitly draw on ideological convictions; when assuming a ‘hierarchical position’, the ranking of credibility depends on how informed and objective others are perceived to be. The positions embody different roles for the respondents as ‘citizens’ and as ‘lay persons’, respectively; that is, they indicate the possession of contrasting ideas about their own relevance in policy matters. This raises the question of how to interpret the fact that people disqualify themselves from policy making, seeing themselves as incompetent. Challenging current conflict-focused models in the public understanding of science (PUS) literature, I argue that the hierarchical position can be interpreted as a broader desire for consensus. In the patent area, I show that paying attention to the hierarchical position is crucial to understanding why an industry representative is regarded by some to be a credible ‘expert’. The study sheds light on the ‘public understanding of expertise’ more broadly, and within the bioeconomic field in particular.

The Ciel, miroir des cultures poster-exhibition was designed by the Association Française d'Astronomie and printed in 300 copies in 2005. Each copy is composed of 14 posters introducing the different ways human beings and societies have used the sky and the heavens in history. More than three hundred cultural events have now been using the exhibition in schools and community structures as public libraries and social centres, taking place mainly in low-income urban or suburban neighbourhoods. This three-year work demonstrated the relevance of this kind of tools and events to pedagogical and social aims, specifically if the event is not limited to showing posters and also offers an opportunity for dialogue.