Equipping biomedical students for science-society dialogue

The rapid advancement of biomedicine and biotechnology presents complex socio-ethical dilemmas. Innovations like gene editing, bio-printing, and neurotechnology promise breakthroughs but also raise concerns about societal impacts. In response, policy frameworks such as the Ethical, Legal, and Social Implications (ELSI) and Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) have been established to guide the development and introduction of new and emerging technologies. Both frameworks emphasize early anticipation of ethical issues, for example through public and stakeholder involvement. However, fostering productive science-society interactions has proven challenging. Misinformation, distrust, and power imbalances often hinder meaningful engagement. In addition, scientists frequently struggle with their role in the public domain and/or lack critical communication competencies. Consequently, the field of science communication training has gained importance, with research suggesting that early-stage training integrated into undergraduate programs is most beneficial. Yet, there is little consensus on what constitutes effective training or which skills should be addressed. This dissertation explores competencies and training strategies for effectively equipping undergraduate biomedical students for meaningful science-society dialogue. Chapter 2 addresses the gap between theoretical science communication frameworks and their practical application. Historically, scientists followed the "deficit model," aiming to bridge public knowledge gaps. However, this model has been criticized, giving rise to the "dialogue model," which emphasizes the importance of mutual learning and involving different viewpoints. Despite widespread support for the dialogue model, it has been difficult to implement in practice. Chapter 2 proposes three responsibilities that could help scientists engaging in contemporary science communication to adhere to the dialogue model. These are the responsibility to share tailored knowledge, to listen and learn, and to invest in relationships. Building on that, Chapter 3 investigates a practice case of public dialogue: the Dutch dialogue on human germline genetic modification (HGGM). By analysing guiding principles for conducting good public dialogue and observing scientists involved in the Dutch dialogue, each responsibility is further concretized into three behavioral prompts and concomitant examples of concrete behavioral actions. The resulting framework provides actionable guidelines for scientists to foster better science-society interactions, especially in the context of biomedical issues. Part 2 of this dissertation shifts focus to the education and training of biomedical students. Based on the findings of Chapters 2 and 3, Chapter 4 explores focus areas for integrating science communication training into undergraduate science curricula. It analyses a student assignment in which first-year biomedical students are tasked to imagine fulfilling a role as scientist in a public dialogue and to formulate relevant, observable behavior for each behavioral prompt. Findings indicate that undergraduate students could benefit from assistance with translating abstract concepts like respect and listening into concrete behaviors, and from emphasizing fostering informed views of the nature of science (NOS) when learning to comprehend models of science communication. In relation to the latter, chapter 5 examines how biomedical education shapes students' understanding of science. It proposes a framework for characterizing epistemological notions underlying scientific language use, that might unintentionally contribute to developing uninformed views of NOS. In relation to the former, Chapter 6 investigates the Active Listening Observation Scale (ALOS) as a tool to support developing active listening competency. Thematic analysis of interviews conducted with third-year biomedical students who utilized the ALOS in the context of a science communication course shows that the ALOS contributes positively to fostering active listening competency on three levels: cognition, skills, and affect. Chapter 7 summarizes the key findings of this dissertation, highlighting the importance of understanding dialogue-based science communication and the role of active listening, and discusses its broader implications.