Scientific Characters: Rhetoric, Politics, and Trust in Breast Cancer Research

Lisa Keränen

2010-01-01

Abstract:Addresses what happens when scientists, patients, and advocates are called to defend themselves in public concerning complex technical matters with direct implications for human life. Sheds light on the challenges faced by scientists and citizens as science becomes more bureaucratized, dispersed, and accountable to varied publics.

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Who Speaks for Science?

Douglas Allchin

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-021-00257-4

2021-10-16

Science and Education

Abstract:Abstract Ironically, flat-Earthers, anti-vaxxers, and climate change naysayers trust in science. Unfortunately, they trust the wrong science. That conundrum lies at the heart of scientific literacy in an age of well-funded commercial and ideological interests and overwhelming digital information. The core question for the citizen-consumer is not philosophically “why trust science?” (Oreskes 2019) but sociologically “who speaks for science?” Teachers can help students learn how to navigate the treacherous territory of inevitably mediated communication and the vulnerabilities of epistemic dependence. Students need to understand the role of science communication practices (media literacy) and the roles of credibility, expertise and honesty and the deceptive strategies used by imitators of science to seem like credible voices for science.

education & educational research,history & philosophy of science
Science communication, strategic communication and rhetoric: the case of health authorities, vaccine hesitancy, trust and credibility

Øyvind Ihlen

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/jcom-03-2020-0017

2020-05-23

Journal of Communication Management

Abstract:Purpose There is a great potential in pulling together science communication and strategic communication, especially given how the former has gained importance in organizational contexts. Strategic communication, including rhetorical theory, can offer insights that are invaluable to understand the contests over what “truth” is and how different political perspectives influence such debates. The case of vaccine hesitancy is used as an illustration of the challenges posed to organizations and organizational communication around science-related issues today. There is a need to understand the audience in order to build credibility, or ethos, while at the same time recognizing the contingent and situational character of this endeavor. Findings Rhetoric and strategic communication can offer science communication the essential knowledge to strengthen credibility. While much attention has been geared toward understanding the audience, strategic communication and rhetoric in particular go further and also spell out the strategic implications for communication that is intended to strengthen credibility. Additionally, rhetoric alerts us to how credibility, or ethos, is not a fixed quality in a sender or a text but is situational and constantly negotiated. While the case of vaccine hesitancy and health authorities is used as an illustration, all organizations share the need to somehow have others believe in what they are saying. The toolboxes of strategic communication and rhetoric hold a number of insights and approaches that could benefit science communication. Originality/value The study pulls together insights from rhetoric and strategic communication that can inform science communication.
Hope for prevention--perspective of the cancer advocate

E A Hart

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.jncimonographs.a024240

Abstract:Breast and prostate cancer survivors and advocates participated as panelists with scientists in an interactive panel discussion following 2 days of scientific presentations on "Estrogens as Endogenous Carcinogens in the Breast and Prostate." Advocates raised several issues of concern and questions related to the research presented. Concerns included the following: 1) a global fear of developing either breast or prostate cancer and recurrence from these tumors, 2) a specific fear that estrogen replacement therapy could enhance the development of new breast cancers and stimulate recurrence in breast cancer survivors, and 3) a concern that researchers examining minority communities should have sensitivity to the specific culture under study and an understanding of specific research issues that are relevant in those communities. The questions raised included the following: 1) What are the implications of resistance to antiestrogen therapies and what is the appropriate sequencing of hormone therapy for longer-term benefit? 2) Can one identify women and men at risk for cancer who do not have the usual risk factors? 3) Where does the development of blood or urine tests to screen for cancer currently stand? 4) Can research findings be translated into effective therapies more rapidly? 5) Can the status of this translational process be communicated to the public in a meaningful way by breaking down language barriers? 6) What means are available to develop more creative ways to fund pilot studies that do not require preliminary data and to create new funding mechanisms to respond to the needs of scientists, particularly those that work collaboratively from multiple institutions and multidisciplines? 7) How can the need for increased emphasis on and visibility for prostate cancer be communicated? Following the interactive dialogue, scientists and advocates suggested more collaborative research with sustained funding avenues, continued dialogue and collaboration between scientists and advocates, and more collaborative research groups like the Cancer Cube.
The Rhetoric of Transparency: Telling Knowledge in Ancient Medical and Forensic Texts

Giulia Maltagliati

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1353/rht.2023.a910299

2023-06-01

Rhetorica

Abstract:Abstract: This paper investigates the role of rhetoric within ancient medicine by setting medical writings in dialogue with contemporary forensic texts. Reading across these two genres allows us to capture the shared ways in which early medical and forensic discourse mobilise rhetoric in response to the epistemological limits of medical and forensic practice. Both medical and forensic discourse frame factual and practical knowledge as the remedy to the slippages of words, but at the same time they need words to formulate and validate their tentative knowledge of those very facts. Select readings from the Epidemics illustrate the importance of a rhetorically structured narrative in response to uncertain scenarios. Much like the narrative of forensic texts, I argue, the case-histories of the Epidemics try to shape elusive realities through a rhetorical gesture that confers a precise meaning upon them. Rhetoric, the paper concludes, is not merely an embellishment nor a skill. It is, instead, a medium for the communication of knowledge and the negotiation of its limits, even in texts that at first glance seem, or claim, to be devoid of any rhetorical features.
Scientific supremacy as an obstacle to establishing and sustaining interdisciplinary dialogue across knowledge paradigms in health care and medicine

Birgitta Haga Gripsrud,Kari Nyheim Solbrække

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11019-019-09901-x

Abstract:This is a response to a short communication on our research presented in Solbrække et al. (Med Health Care Philos 20(1):89-103, 2017), which raises a series of serious allegations. Our article explored the rise of 'the breast cancer gene' as a field of medical, cultural and personal knowledge. We used the concept biological citizenship to elucidate representations of, and experiences with, hereditary breast cancer in a Norwegian context, addressing a research deficit. In our response to Møller and Hovig's (Med Health Care Philos 21(2):239-242, 2018a) opinionated piece, we start by questioning on which scientific grounds they base their knowledge claims and situate their criticism in a pre-determined positivist script, which exposes their incompetency when it comes to establishing a useful critique of our research. We tie this to an attitude of scientific supremacy, which reduces the complexity and specificity of different knowledges into a clichéd divide between 'hard evidence' and 'fiction'-presented in a predictable narrative which seeks to establish research protagonists and antagonists. We elaborate on the rationale of our qualitative approach to analyzing and interpreting situated and mediated aspects of BRCA 1/2. We counter claims that our research does harm to patients. We refer to a medical scandal emerging from Norway where 21 women were wrongfully diagnosed and surgically treated for a mis-interpreted cancer gene mutation. In conclusion, we stand by the integrity of our research as reported in the original paper. Scientific supremacy and pre-scripted criticism impose considerable obstacles for the possibility of establishing interdisciplinary dialogue across knowledge paradigms in health care and medicine. We therefore urge readers to reflect on how we can establish and sustain ethically careful and truthful dialogue-without doing violence to epistemological differences-to protect and advance the interdisciplinarity that constitutes the journal's scope.
Trust, emotion, sex, politics, and science: surveying the risk-assessment battlefield

P Slovic

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1007041821623

Abstract:Risk management has become increasingly politicized and contentious. Polarized views, controversy, and conflict have become pervasive. Research has begun to provide a new perspective on this problem by demonstrating the complexity of the concept "risk" and the inadequacies of the traditional view of risk assessment as a purely scientific enterprise. This paper argues that danger is real, but risk is socially constructed. Risk assessment is inherently subjective and represents a blending of science and judgment with important psychological, social, cultural, and political factors. In addition, our social and democratic institutions, remarkable as they are in many respects, breed distrust in the risk arena. Whoever controls the definition of risk controls the rational solution to the problem at hand. If risk is defined one way, then one option will rise to the top as the most cost-effective or the safest or the best. If it is defined another way, perhaps incorporating qualitative characteristics and other contextual factors, one will likely get a different ordering of action solutions. Defining risk is thus an exercise in power. Scientific literacy and public education are important, but they are not central to risk controversies. The public is not irrational. Their judgments about risk are influenced by emotion and affect in a way that is both simple and sophisticated. The same holds true for scientists. Public views are also influenced by worldviews, ideologies, and values; so are scientists' views, particularly when they are working at the limits of their expertise. The limitations of risk science, the importance and difficulty of maintaining trust, and the complex, sociopolitical nature of risk point to the need for a new approach--one that focuses upon introducing more public participation into both risk assessment and risk decision making in order to make the decision process more democratic, improve the relevance and quality of technical analysis, and increase the legitimacy and public acceptance of the resulting decisions.
How the public evaluates media representations of uncertain science: An integrated explanatory framework

Chelsea L. Ratcliff,Rebekah Wicke

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/09636625221122960

2022-10-07

Public Understanding of Science

Abstract:Public Understanding of Science, Ahead of Print. Understanding how to portray uncertain science to the public is a pressing goal for science communication. This study compared US public audience reactions to a news article depicting a novel discovery in neurogenomics as certain or uncertain, with statements of (un)certainty attributed to either affiliated or unaffiliated scientists. The uncertainty disclosure had no main effect on perceived news article credibility, scientist trustworthiness, objectivity of the scientists' depiction, or willingness to participate in genomic research. However, news credibility and scientist objectivity ratings were higher for uncertainty disclosure attributed to the affiliated scientists. Participants with greater preference for information about uncertainty found the scientists more trustworthy, their depictions more balanced, and the news article more credible when the research was described as uncertain, and these effects were stronger for affiliated scientist attribution. Findings underscore the important roles of disclosure source and audience characteristics in public reactions to media representations of scientific uncertainty.

communication,history & philosophy of science
Public controversy and citizens' attitude formation about animal research: A case for scholarship and recommendations on conflicts at the science-society interface

Elena Link,Katharina Emde-Lachmund,Sophie Bruns,Anja Dittrich,Meike Stiesch,Axel Haverich,Stefan Treue,Christoph Klimmt

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0295503

IF: 3.7

2024-01-04

PLoS ONE

Abstract:Activist groups attack animal research and put scientists and their institutions under pressure, whereas scientists often remain silent. We report an interdisciplinary research project driven by a communication science perspective on how citizens respond to news reports about animal research (3 experiments, overall N = 765) and a German science-initiated information platform ("Tierversuche verstehen"; controlled user study, N = 100). Findings demonstrate that a critical journalist perspective within neutral, two-sided news reports (e.g., skeptical expert statements or images of suffering animals) does not affect citizen opinion strongly. Information media provided by scientific institutions seem to be welcomed even by citizens who hold critical prior attitudes. From these results, we develop a set of recommendations for future public communication of animal research that builds on best practices in organizational and crisis communication. These suggestions are intended to empower animal researchers to actively participate in public debate to support citizens' informed attitude formation.

multidisciplinary sciences
Communicating Radiation Risk: The Power of Planned, Persuasive Messaging

Jessica S Wieder

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/HP.0000000000000998

Abstract:Every day, health physicists and physicians are expected to communicate effectively with concerned people, but rarely (if ever) are they given training on how to effectively communicate. In an age of social media, this paper presents the relevance of teachings from an ancient Greek philosopher. Aristotle's Rhetoric is still considered one of the most influential works on persuasive messaging. He puts the onus of effective communications on the people with the "true" and "just" information to communicate that information clearly to the audience. By communicating with intention-using the persuasive appeals of ethos, pathos, logos, and storytelling-radiation professionals can speak to their expertise in radiation science, while adapting their instructions, presentations, and communication styles to meet the needs of each type of audience: from scientists to concerned citizens, from doctors to first responders, and beyond.
Words Matter: Reflective Science Communication and Tradeoffs in Environmental Health Research

Kevin C Elliott,Heather B Patisaul,Robert M Sargis,Laura N Vandenberg

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp14527

IF: 11.035

2024-10-31

Environmental Health Perspectives

Abstract:CONCLUSIONS: Researchers who seek to responsibly communicate societally relevant work can employ several strategies to mitigate difficult tradeoffs, including a) striving for sensitivity to the social context and its relationship to their framing choices, b) choosing to avoid some frames, c) employing frames that alleviate ethical tensions, d) fostering education to alleviate harms, e) developing interdisciplinary and community collaborations, and f) working with institutions like scientific...

environmental sciences,public, environmental & occupational health,toxicology
ACTH and adrenocortical steroids in the management of selected patients with infectious diseases.

W. Spink

Abstract:This report is concerned with observations made between 1950 and 1959 on 81 patients selected to receive ACTH or adrenocortical steroids for an infection or complication of an infection. Most of the patients were critically ill. Although hormone therapy was clearly indicated in many patients on the basis of accumulated clinical experience documented in the literature, it was also apparent that more information was desirable in certain types of illness. In the present investigation an attempt was made to answer four general questions. First, is ACTH or the adrenocortical steroids useful in the management of peripheral circulatory failure due to an infection? Second, what are the undesirable inflammatory reactions associated with infectious diseases that can be most advantageously subdued with steroid therapy? Third, are ACTH or adrenocortical steroids the most desirable agents for the treatment of severe drug reactions? And fourthly, what side effects result from intensive, short-term hormone therapy?
Abstract 714: Using empathy-driven instructional design to reimagine cancer research

Janet Brishke,Zachary Jones,Elizabeth A. Shenkman

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1158/1538-7445.am2023-714

IF: 11.2

2023-04-04

Cancer Research

Abstract:Abstract Following the advent of groups like PCORI, patient engagement in clinical research is no longer a novel concept. However, involvement of lay stakeholders in areas such as artificial intelligence or biomedical informatics can pose challenges. Community stakeholder involvement in cancer research can prove especially challenging as cancer has personally impacted nearly everyone. The purpose of this study was to assess whether addressing needs outlined in the Self-Determination Theory (SDT) helped community stakeholders feel prepared for this role. The University of Florida (UF) health science center employs Citizen Scientists (CSs) as partners in the research process to offer insight otherwise unavailable to researchers. To prepare for this role, CSs complete an online curriculum, co-created by their peers and UF researchers, to educate them about clinical research. The UF Health Cancer Center created the CS Cancer Curriculum (CSCC) as a companion piece to the clinical research course. To create the CSCC, researchers, administrators, and CSs and participated in a needs assessment to identify common interests. Through this needs assessment, the research team found that each CS had personal connections to cancer and the team felt an empathic approach to the course design was necessary to respect these experiences. The SDT and reflective questions were applied throughout the course. Storytelling was used to present a multipart case study series with a patient, family members, and physician. Those videos were accompanied by a note that the story may cause the viewer to recall their own painful experiences. The note then prompted viewers to review resources from the National Cancer Institute support services page if needed. All but two of the nine CSs scored a 95% or higher across all questions in the CSCC. Overall course assessments included a pre/posttest and a case study assessment based on the SDT. Relatedness (100%) and autonomy (83%) were the highest construct scores of the case study assessment, indicating that CSs felt most empowered in their role once they had more of an emotional connection to the subject matter. For the pre/posttests, confidence in their ability to learn and apply the content to their work grew slightly (79% to 80%). However, scores for the “Capable” construct rose by several percentage points. At the pretest, 81% felt they were capable of learning the content and, at the posttest, 86% felt that they were capable of applying the content. Taking the time to ensure that the psychological needs of learners are met can result in committed, engaged research partners who can provide pragmatic feedback and have long-lasting effects on cancer research. The CSs in this study were passionate about this work, despite the intimidating jargon and dense concepts used in this field. They are an excellent example of how impactful community stakeholders can be if researchers can meet them where they are. Citation Format: Janet Brishke, Zachary Jones, Elizabeth A. Shenkman. Using empathy-driven instructional design to reimagine cancer research [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2023; Part 1 (Regular and Invited Abstracts); 2023 Apr 14-19; Orlando, FL. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2023;83(7_Suppl):Abstract nr 714.

oncology
Speak up & reach out: In defense of biomedical research

Degan Mesler,Vicki Campbell

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2024.03.009

IF: 16.2

2024-05-02

Neuron

Abstract:Scientists face challenges in communicating about their careers in biomedical research to the public, despite the importance of doing so. Here, we discuss tools and resources for outreach, such as posters, videos, and presentations that can be leveraged by scientists to help educate communities about the pivotal role of animals in medical progress.

neurosciences
Addressing Challenges to Public Understanding of Science: Epistemic Cognition, Motivated Reasoning, and Conceptual Change

Gale M. Sinatra,Dorothe Kienhues,Barbara K. Hofer

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2014.916216

2014-04-03

Educational Psychologist

Abstract:Science is of critical importance to daily life in a knowledge society and has a significant influence on many everyday decisions. As scientific problems increase in their number and complexity, so do the challenges facing the public in understanding these issues. Our objective is to focus on 3 of those challenges: the challenge of reasoning about knowledge and the processes of knowing, the challenge of overcoming biases in that reasoning, and the challenge of overcoming misconceptions. We propose that research in epistemic cognition, motivated reasoning, and conceptual change can help to identify, understand, and address these obstacles for public understanding of science. We explain the contributions of each of these areas in providing insights into the public's understandings and misunderstandings about knowledge, the nature of science, and the content of science. We close with educational recommendations for promoting scientific literacy.

education & educational research,psychology, educational
Prosocial motives underlie scientific censorship by scientists: A perspective and research agenda

Cory J Clark,Lee Jussim,Komi Frey,Sean T Stevens,Musa Al-Gharbi,Karl Aquino,J Michael Bailey,Nicole Barbaro,Roy F Baumeister,April Bleske-Rechek,David Buss,Stephen Ceci,Marco Del Giudice,Peter H Ditto,Joseph P Forgas,David C Geary,Glenn Geher,Sarah Haider,Nathan Honeycutt,Hrishikesh Joshi,Anna I Krylov,Elizabeth Loftus,Glenn Loury,Louise Lu,Michael Macy,Chris C Martin,John McWhorter,Geoffrey Miller,Pamela Paresky,Steven Pinker,Wilfred Reilly,Catherine Salmon,Steve Stewart-Williams,Philip E Tetlock,Wendy M Williams,Anne E Wilson,Bo M Winegard,George Yancey,William von Hippel

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2301642120

2023-11-28

Abstract:Science is among humanity's greatest achievements, yet scientific censorship is rarely studied empirically. We explore the social, psychological, and institutional causes and consequences of scientific censorship (defined as actions aimed at obstructing particular scientific ideas from reaching an audience for reasons other than low scientific quality). Popular narratives suggest that scientific censorship is driven by authoritarian officials with dark motives, such as dogmatism and intolerance. Our analysis suggests that scientific censorship is often driven by scientists, who are primarily motivated by self-protection, benevolence toward peer scholars, and prosocial concerns for the well-being of human social groups. This perspective helps explain both recent findings on scientific censorship and recent changes to scientific institutions, such as the use of harm-based criteria to evaluate research. We discuss unknowns surrounding the consequences of censorship and provide recommendations for improving transparency and accountability in scientific decision-making to enable the exploration of these unknowns. The benefits of censorship may sometimes outweigh costs. However, until costs and benefits are examined empirically, scholars on opposing sides of ongoing debates are left to quarrel based on competing values, assumptions, and intuitions.
The science of trust: future directions, research gaps, and implications for health and risk communication

Renata Schiavo (Moderator and Roundtable Chair/Organizer),Gil Eyal (Participant),Rafael Obregon (Participant),Sandra C Quinn (Participant),Helen Riess (Participant),Nikita Boston-Fisher (Co-Organizer)

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/17538068.2022.2121199

Abstract:'Trust is among the most important factors in human life, as it pervades' all domains of society [1] and related decision-making processes. This includes people's trust in science, and in clinical and public health solutions. Unequivocally, community and patient trust are foundational to the adoption and maintenance of health-related behaviors, social norms, and policies. Yet, trust has to be earned and developed over time and through multiple interactions. Trust is about dialogue and human connection. It's about listening and knowing that one interaction will not be enough to build trust. It is also influenced by a variety of social, economic, cultural, and political factors, past experiences, and the history of specific communities and patient groups. It should be at the core of the health and social systems with which people interact. More recently, trust in evidence-based information has also been affected by misinformation, not only on social media but also in a variety of community, institutional, and patient settings. Ultimately, we are in the midst of a global trust crisis that precedes the COVID-19 pandemic and is often rooted in the health, racial, and social inequities many groups experience [2].
Reflecting on the Science in Science Communication

K. Bronson

DOI: https://doi.org/10.22230/CJC.2014V39N4A2751

2014-11-20

Abstract:Science communication is often understood as the transmission of facts to ignorant audiences. Science and Technology Studies allows a different perspective on science—as open to negotiation with other knowledges and institutions—and therefore a different perspective on its communication. Within an STS perspective, what counts as scientific fact or legitimate expertise takes shape within communicative acts. This article demonstrates the analytical purchase given by taking such an approach to science communication by applying it to a case analysis of biotechnology resistance on the Canadian Prairie. La communication scientifique est souvent comprise comme la transmission de faits a un public ignorant. Etudes des science et technologies (STS) nous proposent une perspective differente sur la science—comme un ensemble de contenus ouverts a la negociation avec d’autres savoirs et institutions—et donc une perspective decalee en termes de communication. Dans une perspective STS, ce qui est considere comme un fait scientifique ou une expertise legitime prend forme dans des actes de communication. Cet article demontre la pertinence de ce type d’analyse pour apprehender la communication scientifique en l’appliquant a une etude de cas portant sur la resistance face aux biotechnologies dans la Prairie canadienne.

Sociology
Gaining trust as well as respect in communicating to motivated audiences about science topics

Susan T Fiske,Cydney Dupree

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1317505111

2014-09-16

Abstract:Expertise is a prerequisite for communicator credibility, entailing the knowledge and ability to be accurate. Trust also is essential to communicator credibility. Audiences view trustworthiness as the motivation to be truthful. Identifying whom to trust follows systematic principles. People decide quickly another's apparent intent: Who is friend or foe, on their side or not, or a cooperator or competitor. Those seemingly on their side are deemed warm (friendly, trustworthy). People then decide whether the other is competent to enact those intents. Perception of scientists, like other social perceptions, involves inferring both their apparent intent (warmth) and capability (competence). To illustrate, we polled adults online about typical American jobs, rated as American society views them, on warmth and competence dimensions, as well as relevant emotions. Ambivalently perceived high-competence but low-warmth, "envied" professions included lawyers, chief executive officers, engineers, accountants, scientists, and researchers. Being seen as competent but cold might not seem problematic until one recalls that communicator credibility requires not just status and expertise but also trustworthiness (warmth). Other research indicates the risk from being enviable. Turning to a case study of scientific communication, another online sample of adults described public attitudes toward climate scientists specifically. Although distrust is low, the apparent motive to gain research money is distrusted. The literature on climate science communicators agrees that the public trusts impartiality, not persuasive agendas. Overall, communicator credibility needs to address both expertise and trustworthiness. Scientists have earned audiences' respect, but not necessarily their trust. Discussing, teaching, and sharing information can earn trust to show scientists' trustworthy intentions.
Public understanding of science: Communicating in the midst of a pandemic

Salim S. Abdool Karim

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/09636625221089391

2022-05-02

Public Understanding of Science

Abstract:Public Understanding of Science, Volume 31, Issue 3, Page 282-287, April 2022. While Covid-19 created unprecedented transparency with real-time reporting across the globe, the pandemic's politically charged environment made public communication of scientific information particularly challenging. Scientists, as authoritative voices, were thrust into the public eye to explain the evidence amid uncertainty, a changing virus, distrust in government and concerns about their self-interest and hidden agendas. Honest communication that provides the public with enough easy-to-understand information to make up their own minds is essential during the pandemic; the public deserves nothing less.

communication,history & philosophy of science
Rhetoric of research: a call for renaming the clinical research partnership

Foxwell,A. M.,LaRochelle,L. M.,Ulrich,C. M.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2023-080137

IF: 3.006

2024-05-22

BMJ Open

Abstract:Objective Research cannot advance without the voluntary participation of human participants. Summary of arguments Full participation of research participants is often restrained by the traditional research framework, which relegates them to a predefined participant role and allows them only quasi-scripted opportunities to contribute to research processes and outcomes. Terms commonly used to refer to research participants do not reflect their significant role or send a clear message about their value. The authors propose a shift from 'patient participant' to 'participant partner.' Recognition of the true partnership between the participant and the research team, from the consent process to the trial's end, will encourage and enable fuller participation. Conclusion Changing the rhetoric of research in the labelling of research participants will require dialogue. 'Respect for persons' demands it, and the research process will be better for it.

medicine, general & internal

Scientific Characters: Rhetoric, Politics, and Trust in Breast Cancer Research

Who Speaks for Science?

Science communication, strategic communication and rhetoric: the case of health authorities, vaccine hesitancy, trust and credibility

Hope for prevention--perspective of the cancer advocate

The Rhetoric of Transparency: Telling Knowledge in Ancient Medical and Forensic Texts

Scientific supremacy as an obstacle to establishing and sustaining interdisciplinary dialogue across knowledge paradigms in health care and medicine

Trust, emotion, sex, politics, and science: surveying the risk-assessment battlefield

How the public evaluates media representations of uncertain science: An integrated explanatory framework

Public controversy and citizens' attitude formation about animal research: A case for scholarship and recommendations on conflicts at the science-society interface

Communicating Radiation Risk: The Power of Planned, Persuasive Messaging

Words Matter: Reflective Science Communication and Tradeoffs in Environmental Health Research

ACTH and adrenocortical steroids in the management of selected patients with infectious diseases.

Abstract 714: Using empathy-driven instructional design to reimagine cancer research

Speak up & reach out: In defense of biomedical research

Addressing Challenges to Public Understanding of Science: Epistemic Cognition, Motivated Reasoning, and Conceptual Change

Prosocial motives underlie scientific censorship by scientists: A perspective and research agenda

The science of trust: future directions, research gaps, and implications for health and risk communication

Reflecting on the Science in Science Communication

Gaining trust as well as respect in communicating to motivated audiences about science topics

Public understanding of science: Communicating in the midst of a pandemic

Rhetoric of research: a call for renaming the clinical research partnership