Advertisement
Browse Subject Areas
?

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here.

  • Loading metrics

Open Access

Peer-reviewed

Research Article

Examination of public perceptions of microbes and microbiomes in the United States reveals insights for science communication

  • Katherine Kokkinias,

    Roles Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

    Affiliation Department of Microbiology, Immunology and Pathology, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado, United States of America

    ⨯
  • Katherine Pruneski,

    Roles Formal analysis, Writing – review & editing

    Affiliation Department of Microbiology, Immunology and Pathology, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado, United States of America

    ⨯
  • Kelly Wrighton,

    Roles Funding acquisition, Supervision, Writing – review & editing

    Affiliations Department of Microbiology, Immunology and Pathology, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado, United States of America, Department of Soil and Crop Sciences, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado, United States of America

    ⨯
  • Nicole Kelp

    Roles Conceptualization, Methodology, Supervision, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

    nicole.kelp@colostate.edu

    Affiliation Department of Microbiology, Immunology and Pathology, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado, United States of America

    ⨯

Abstract

Within a changing research and media landscape, misconceptions and misinformation about microorganisms and microbiomes can arise, necessitating improvements in science communication practices through insights in public perceptions of the microbial world. Yet, little is known about public perceptions of microorganisms and microbiomes, making it difficult to develop tailored messaging. Here we perform an inductive thematic analysis with interviews and surveys from thirty adults across the United States to identify key factors to enhance microbial science communication efforts. Together, our results underscore the importance of 1) recognizing the existing and desired future knowledge of an audience, 2) aligning with broader socio-scientific issues that resonate with people in relevant channels using social networks, 3) fostering collaboration between microbiologists, social scientists, and communicators to improve messaging, and 4) appealing to people’s values and emotions to establish meaningful connections. This study concludes that non-microbial interests, such as an interest in health and wellness, may lead to acquisition of microbial knowledge and that people want scientists to share microbial messages preferably on platforms like social media. Additionally, we identified confusion about microbial terms and a desire to understand human-centric benefits of microorganisms and microbiomes. We suggest that microbiologists partner with science communicators to develop microbial messaging, capitalizing on connections to non-microbial interests and appealing to people’s microbial worldview.

Citation: Kokkinias K, Pruneski K, Wrighton K, Kelp N (2024) Examination of public perceptions of microbes and microbiomes in the United States reveals insights for science communication. PLoS ONE 19(10): e0312427. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0312427

Editor: Nicola Diviani, Swiss Paraplegic Research, SWITZERLAND

Received: May 29, 2024; Accepted: October 7, 2024; Published: October 21, 2024

Copyright: © 2024 Kokkinias et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Data Availability: To uphold the ethical guidelines of our Institutional Review Board, we cannot share interview transcript or survey data in a public repository. Data requests may be sent to the Colorado State University Institutional Review Board (CSU_IRB@colostate.edu) R code to generate the figures but not the associated data are provided via github (https://github.com/Kokkinias/Public-Perceptions-of-Microbes-and-Microbiomes.git).

Funding: This work was supported by NIH-National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases R01AI143288 and the Bishop award (6477160) granted to KCW. Additional support came from NIH Predoctoral Training grant T32AI162691 (KK). The funders had no role in the study design, data collection, interpretation, or the decision to submit for publication.

Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interest exist.

Introduction

Microorganisms (microbes) and microbiomes are vital to life on earth and drive processes related to carbon and nutrient cycling, produce secondary compounds like antibiotics, and facilitate gas exchange which have ramifications on human, animal, plant, and soil health [1–3]. Despite their broad impacts, the term "microbes" is vague and could refer to bacteria, viruses, fungi, or protozoa [4]. The term “microbiome” describes microbes from an ecological perspective and refers to a community of microorganisms and their genomes in an environment at a particular point in time, including both biotic and abiotic factors [5]. The importance of science literacy of microbial terms and functions becomes more apparent with the increase of emerging infectious diseases and global environmental challenges related to climate change [6–9]. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the complex, ever-changing landscape of microbial research made science communication efforts challenging, leading to misinformation and an “infodemic”, where there was an overwhelming amount potentially false or misleading information on the subject [10–13]. With the abundance and availability of information, discerning what is factual and false can be difficult.

At the same time, advances in science pave the possibility of new therapeutics through mechanistic discoveries about microbes and microbiomes [14, 15]. To highlight these discoveries, there has been a global increase in media coverage and the growth of a multi-billion dollar pre- and probiotic industry based on microbiome research which often overstate the efficacy or importance of research findings [16–18]. With increased opportunity for awareness of microbial functions and their impacts, understanding public perceptions of microbes and microbiomes to guide science communication efforts is essential to public health and scientific advocacy.

Microbes are often associated with negative outcomes such as disease, even though much less than 1% of microbes are considered pathogenic [19]. This association with disease can lead to uncertainty and negative emotions, like fear or anxiety [6, 20–22]. Importantly, negative emotions can influence thoughts, learning, and decision-making [23–26]. These perceptions can influence health behaviors which can lead to the rejection of therapeutic interventions, increase health disparities, or in some cases, result in loss of life [10, 27, 28]. Researchers in the fields of science education have investigated school-aged children’s perceptions of microbes and found that students associate microbes with something harmful [22]. Additionally, studies have examined public perceptions of specific infectious diseases such as COVID-19, Mpox, West Nile virus, or malaria, finding misconceptions about causes and prevention strategies as well as emotions such as fear and apathy [29–32]. Together, misconceptions about microbes can delay lifesaving preventative care and can result in hesitance towards public health recommendations [6, 10, 33–37]. Similarly, perceived risk research on fecal microbiome transplants found feelings of disgust stimulated a greater perceived risk of microbiome research and therapies [20]. While this body of research examines perceptions of disease-causing agents or therapeutics, little is known about public perceptions of microbes and microbiomes in general. Furthermore, few studies have asked for stakeholder input into future microbial science communication.

Knowledge about the audience is essential for any communication campaign but is especially important with complex subjects that are characterized by uncertainty or elicit emotions like fear [10, 25, 26, 38–41]. Different audiences have different perceptions of such issues, developed through personal experiences and beliefs which can influence health behaviors and actions [30, 35–37, 42]. To create tailored messaging to meet science communication goals, there needs to be an understanding of public perceptions. For example, research in public perceptions of climate change has identified six worldviews towards climate change amongst Americans: alarmed, concerned, cautious, disengaged, doubtful and dismissive [43, 44]. Climate change communication research has focused on targeting messaging to these groups to evoke change [44–47]. Such audience analysis regarding microbial perceptions is lacking.

Multiple theories examine how people respond to infectious disease and elements to consider in communication research. Briefly, the Theory of Motivated Information Management provides a framework for analyzing how individuals manage emotions and information in the context of uncertainty; additionally, it focuses on how people assess the outcomes of their information-seeking and the efficacy of the communication process they undertake to gain that information [41]. Correspondingly, Lasswell’s model of communication [48, 49] frames communication into five factors: 1) Who is the communicator? 2) What is the message? 3) What channel or medium is it being shared through? 4) Who is the audience? 5) What is the effect? Using these theoretical frameworks, our goal was to identify previous knowledge, sources of information, desired messages, and suggestions for future science communication efforts about microbes and microbiomes. Specifically, we utilize our data and the existing theoretical frameworks to address the following research questions:

  1. RQ1: What do people know about microbes and microbiomes?
  2. RQ2: Where and why have they learned this information?
  3. RQ3: What do people want to know about microbes and microbiomes?
  4. RQ4: How do people want that information shared and who do they think should share that information?
  5. RQ5: How do emotions impact public perceptions about microbes and microbiomes?

Through interviews and a survey, participants shared their experiences and preferences for future microbial science communication campaigns. We assessed where people have learned about microbes and microbiomes, what microbial information people want, how to share it, who should share it, and how other interests and emotions might affect the reception of that information. Together, these results can be used to create more effective, relevant science communication about microbes and microbiomes.

Methods

Participant recruitment and interviews

In the summer of 2023, adults across the United States were recruited via flyers and social media to participate in semi-structured interviews about microbes and microbiomes. Recruitment occurred from March 11, 2023 through August 21, 2023. Thirty participants were selected to be interviewed on a first-come first-served basis. The interview facilitation guide was developed to stimulate conversation around microbes and microbiomes. Questions pertained to definitions of microbes and microbiomes, their functions, personal and peer perceptions of these topics and science communication. Interviews were chosen for the flexibility of assessing participants’ knowledge, allowing researchers to probe explanations and clarify any inconsistencies. As interviews proceeded, the interview facilitation guide was revised to include follow-up questions commonly mentioned by the participants. A final version of the interview facilitation guide is available in the S1 File.

These interviews were conducted either in-person or via Zoom based on the preference and physical location of the participant. This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board at Colorado State University (IRB: #4304). All interviews were recorded with the participants’ approval. Participants provided verbal consent for the study during the interview, which was recorded via the transcript. Interviews were on average ~27 minutes and a survey with demographics questions as well as a question regarding science curiosity was sent out via email after the interview. The science curiosity survey question was developed based on a previously published science curiosity scale [50, 51]. Surveys were sent via email and collected via Qualtrics. For the demographics and science curiosity survey via Qualtrics, participants provided written consent. A document containing the questions listed in the survey is provided in the S2 File. The survey had a 60% (18/30) response rate. Our participants were predominately white (43%), between 25 and 34 years of age (30%), and all had received at least a high school diploma or equivalent (Fig 1). When demographics information was provided during the interview, it was included in Fig 1 for participants who did not complete the survey. Participants were compensated for their time with a $25 gift card. Participants’ transcripts were deidentified and transcribed before analysis.

thumbnail
Download:
Fig 1. Participant demographics.

Demographics of participants (n = 30) are depicted including A) where participants live in the United States, B) participants’ gender (women, men, or non-binary), C) age range of participants, D) participants’ ethnicity, and E) participants’ education level. Demographics information provided during interviews was included for participants who did not complete the survey.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0312427.g001

Interview analysis

After transcription of the recorded interviews, we performed inductive coding reliability thematic analysis. Coding reliability thematic analysis allows for some quantification of themes and sub-themes to identify trends in the data [52, 53]. Two researchers (KK and KP) reviewed five interviews to identify recurring themes and trends in the data. After the two researchers met to discuss their notes, they collapsed similar themes to create an initial codebook. The constant comparison method was used to compare quotes to themes, modify descriptions and examples, and determine if additional themes were necessary [54]. Together, these researchers revised the codebook until they were confident it captured common themes in the data and no new themes emerged. A final copy of the codebook can be found in Table 1. To determine intercoder reliability, 10% of interviews (that is, three interviews) were independently coded using the codebook, and codes were compared within each line as defined by MAXQDA software (v 22.8.0) [55]. Cohen’s κ intercoder score was acceptable (κ = 0.783) as was percent agreement (95%) [56]. As with other studies [57–60], intercoder reliability metrics were used to promote rigor and reflexivity in our data by identifying nuance in how the two researchers were coding the data which was discussed among the researchers. The remaining interviews were divided among the two researchers (KK and KP) for coding using the MAXQDA software (v 22.8.0) [55]. Through codebook thematic analysis of the data, a frequency table of the sub-theme examples was generated by KK and KP to visualize the proportion of participants that mentioned a sub-theme example (Table 2). Sub-theme examples are listed if at least two participants mentioned that example. Within the interviews, some participants (n = 19 participants) mentioned interests that led to microbial knowledge, while other participants did not mention interests that led to microbial knowledge (n = 11 participants). This classification was based on the interview transcript.

thumbnail
Download:
Table 1. Codebook.

Codebook including themes, sub-themes, descriptions of sub-themes, and example quotes from participants generated through inductive thematic analysis.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0312427.t001

thumbnail
Download:
Table 2. Frequency of sub-theme examples.

The table lists the percent of participants (n = 30) who mentioned the listed example of each sub-theme. Sub-theme examples are listed from greatest to least frequency of mention within each sub-theme. Sub-theme examples are included if at least two participants mentioned that example.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0312427.t002

Figures and statistics

Figures and statistics were generated using Excel or R (ggplot2 package v3.3.5, dplyr package v1.1.0, readxl package v1.4.2, and viridis package v0.6.2) [55–58] and modified using Adobe Illustrator (v27.6.1). All available scripts for generating the figures can be found here (https://github.com/Kokkinias/Public-Perceptions-of-Microbes-and-Microbiomes.git).

Results

Our interviews revealed four main themes: (i) previous knowledge, (ii) topic of interest that led to microbial knowledge, (iii) information-seeking processes, and (iv) emotions affecting microbial worldview as indicated in Table 1. Additionally, 11 sub-themes, descriptions of each sub-theme, and example quotes are provided in Table 1. Sub-theme examples and percent of participants who mentioned each sub-theme example are listed in Table 2.

Previous knowledge about microbes and microbiomes

To answer question RQ1, we analyzed what participants knew about microbes and microbiomes, particularly their features or functions. The data revealed that many participants were aware of the connection of microbes and disease, but many participants were confused about the definition and differences between different types of microbes (i.e. viruses, bacteria, and fungi).

“… I don’t think I know the difference between like bacteria and viruses and microbes and how they all like interact.” (P11)

“I don’t know if they [mushrooms] are microbes…” (P10)

Despite this lack of clarity around definitions, nearly all participants were able to identify a positive function of microbes (93%) or microbiomes (93%), citing familiarity with the existence of “good” and “bad” microbes.

“… I’m aware that they’re not all bad, and I think I’ve heard somewhere that it’s like 80% of microbes or maybe even higher than that are beneficial or completely neutral to the human body.” (P12)

Furthermore, some individuals are unfamiliar with term “microbiome” but can describe what a microbiome is often using word etymology or describing a microbiome without using the term.

“I’m not familiar with [what a microbiome is], but I might assume that… they’re a group or a general environment description for microbes, their atmosphere or their context.” (P5)

Other participants had heard of the term and could provide functions of the microbiome usually associated with the human gut microbiome.

“…it [the human gut microbiome] impacts other systems of your body. So, if you have the right bacteria swirling around in there and your immune system might be better… gut health is actually connected to not having Alzheimer’s … It can potentially impact a lot of your other systems and your ability to stay healthy.” (P4)

Despite some participants not being able to define the terms “microbes” or “microbiomes”, all participants were able to identify at least one positive, negative, or neutral feature and function of both. Most participants (83%) described microbes as “small” or “something you can’t see” and 70% mentioned disease as a negative function. More participants described neutral (100%) or positive (93%) features and functions of microbiomes than negative (53%) features and functions.

Past information-seeking processes and topics of interest

In response to interview questions related to RQ2, about where and why they learn about microbes and microbiomes, participants describe learning this information through formal education, word of mouth, books, research articles, news media, TV/movies, podcasts, social media, the internet, and advertisements for products. Overall, the concept of microbes was learned through formal education. Alternatively, the concept of microbiomes, specifically the gut microbiome, was learned through social media or advertisements. Most participants stated they learned microbial information from formal education (80%) but either currently receive information from social media or suggested sharing microbial information via social media (56.7%). During an interview, a participant mentioned prebiotics and probiotics; upon further questioning from the interviewer about where they had seen information about this, the participant said:

“Pretty much everywhere now… The health food store that I go to in [a city in the east coast].” (P25)

There were also individuals who displayed source amnesia, an inability to recall where, when or how information has been acquired, which can result in the spread of misinformation [61].

“Definitely personal conversations. It’s hard to pinpoint. It’s honestly hard to distinguish whether I heard the word “microbe” or if it was lumped into conversations about health in general.” (P11)

Participants described topics of interest that led to microbial knowledge. These topics seem to help introduce people to the concepts of microbes and microbiomes indirectly through other interests in fields such as nature, food systems, or health and wellness. Some specific interests included climate change, gardening, composting, farming or agriculture, exercise and fitness, nutrition and gut health, and an interest in natural remedies or holistic medicine.

“I’m also super interested in being healthy… I’m very active. I go to the gym, so naturally that led to, “OK, what should I be eating?”, which led to, “OK, what’s healthy?”, “What’s not?”, which led to deep dives into “OK, like, this is bad for you?” (P21)

“Because I’ve been so interested in this topic, I would say of gardening and learning about like homesteading naturally leads itself to learning more about the natural gut biome…”. (P22)

In the post-interview survey science curiosity question, participants described their science seeking behavior or science interests they participated in within the last year. Over half of survey respondents described having an interest in science (61%), an interest in nature (72%), and consumed science on social media (56%) (Fig 2). Collectively, we noticed people with an interest in other fields (n = 19 participants), such as health and wellness, tended to describe more positive functions than negative functions of microbes and microbiomes compared to those who did not mention a special interest (n = 11 participants). Future work using more quantitative methods, such as a survey, should assess whether these trends persist more broadly and are statistically significant. Additionally, people with these interests were more likely to define the term “microbiome” or mention non-human related functions of microbiomes like soil health.

thumbnail
Download:
Fig 2. Science curiosity survey question.

Bar chart of survey respondents’ (n = 18 participants) science curiosity within the last year. Participants that did not complete the survey (n = 12 participants) are not reflected in this figure.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0312427.g002

Desired information about microbes and microbiomes

During interviews, participants shared information they would like to know personally and information they thought others would benefit from (RQ3). Usually, the information a participant thought would be useful for them was described as also being useful for others and related to the perception of others’ knowledge of microbes and microbiomes. The most desired information was general knowledge about microbes and microbiomes such as definitions about these terms. This was often mentioned when describing what others should know about microbes. Many participants (53.3%) also wanted information on disease avoidance and human health benefits. Some participants (16.7%) wanted more microbial information related to climate change solutions or other special interests.

“I would love to learn more… as it relates to climate change and some of the toxic chemicals and products that we have created. And how we could potentially treat those problems with microbes. Also, would love to learn at a high level what we’ve learned as it relates to viruses and immunity and how a better understanding of microbes can help us avoid pandemics in the future.” (P3)

“What are they? What’s their effect on us humans? On animals?… If they are dangerous or not? How to use them in your favor? How to prevent them harming us? Where are they? What is it?… Where do we find them? What’s their lifespan too?” (P5)

More broadly, some participants expressed a desire for themselves or others to understand the ecological roles of microbes (46.7%) and other human-centric benefits (53.3%).

“We should also know they are essential to our existence, because I believe that human existence is dependent on so many factors, and I think microorganisms and microbes are one of the factors. So, I think it will be important for us to also know the role they play in the ecosystem.” (P7)

Those who knew about functions of microbiomes also wanted others to know about the positive role microbes and microbiomes can play.

“I would mainly just like them to know that… it’s a much bigger part of our lives than is readily apparent… I think I would like people to know that they’re not all pathogens. Microbes aren’t just things that cause disease. It’s so much bigger than that.” (P13)

Many participants wanted to learn and share information about how microbes and microbiomes impact human health. Some with an interest in nature emphasized the importance of understanding their role in natural ecological processes or climate change.

Future information-seeking processes

When describing how they wanted microbe-related messages shared in future science communication efforts (RQ4), participants discussed information sharing channels, communicators, and communication techniques that would be beneficial or should be avoided. Formal education, word of mouth, books, research articles, news media, TV/movies, podcasts, social media, the internet, and advertisements for products were identified by participants as channels to share microbe-related information in the future. Yet regardless of age, there was a greater emphasis on using various social media platforms (Instagram, TikTok, Reddit, etc.) due to perceived reach to a variety of audiences.

“Unfortunately, it [social media] is probably the best place. I hate social media, but I will admit that I am on it. It’s just the quickest access to information when you need it, and social media does a great job of taking information and condensing it into really short videos. That is not great for our attention span; however, if you need a quick answer, it’s good for that.” (P21)

“Reddit. That’s explained like I’m five (years old) in words that I can understand…” (P16)

Participants had a wide array of suggestions as to who they would like to share microbe-related information which included specific individuals they knew, professionals (doctors, scientists, science communicators, or social media influencers), educational institutions (museums, universities, and TED conferences), and governmental institutions (e.g., the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention or the National Institutes of Health). Most commonly, participants wanted the “experts” sharing information about microbes and microbiomes or collaborations between researchers and communicators. The “experts” participants referred to were commonly scientists or others who are “doing the research”, yet some doubted the science communication skills of scientists, suggesting collaborations with individuals with those skills.

“If someone was a microbiologist, if someone was probably a registered dietitian, I’d probably also listen to that… like doctors, like a nurse practitioner or a regular physician.” (P21)

“The information should come from scientists that have the research and things to back it up. I think they’re maybe not the best people to be making those graphics just because they maybe don’t have… the design background. So, I guess it would be someone either from the company or the… marketing department just because I think they have a better idea of how to visually appeal to an audience. I think they should work together.” (P24)

Regardless of the communicator, trust was an important factor described by many participants (46.7%). Some participants were hesitant in recommending government institutions related to how they share information or the public’s trust in these institutions.

“That’s a good question. I feel like if it came from some official source… By official I mean, the CDC or something governmental. Maybe I might be less inclined to click on it, because I might just assume that it was going to be kind of boring. But on the other hand, there needs to be some credibility, because I don’t want to just live in a world where we believe whatever people say on the Internet… I guess there are people who have made careers out of science communication, who have degrees in various science fields, so I guess that’s kind of the group I would look towards.” (P19)

“So, if it’s a government source telling people to do things, I think a lot of people are going to be wary of that just off the bat.” (P22)

Participants also described an array of science communication techniques, most of which have supporting evidence of efficacy [62–67]. Many participants described the effectiveness of “short” video content using “simple” language as an effective means of sharing information.

“I personally just enjoy the video format, and I think a lot of other people do as well. I don’t think I’m just projecting that, maybe I am, but I’m imagining maybe more of a short video. So, think kind of like 5 minutes or less. Think of like Tik-Toks or Instagram reels and very brief discussions that can have powerful visual aids attached to them…. Then you can keep their interest, and they can spend 5 minutes on it, 10 minutes on it.” (P13)

Additionally, some recommended connecting to people’s interests, using humor (6.7%), and having scientists or communicators share their identities outside of their career (16.7%).

“… in a very non-scary, non-sterile way… when I think of people talking about microbiology, I think of people talking jargon and it’s very dry. Maybe there’s a whiteboard behind them and they’re going to show me something with their dry erase marker that I’m probably not going to remember or pay attention to. So… maybe someone who’s dressed in just everyday clothes and they’re like, “Hey. I’d love to tell you something” that would work for me… but if it was told in a way that was humorous, most people are receptive to humor. So, if someone could find a way to say it in a way that’s entertaining like with jokes, that would be great.” (P21)

“I think if you can lay the groundwork of like, “I’m a scientist and I love working in this lab and it’s so great. I love this, and I also love my cat. I love gardening. I love like my grandma and her cookies that she makes me”, I just feel like to me that makes them seem like a real human and they’re more relatable to me…” (P22)

Overall, participants described wanting “experts” that they trust and connect with to be sharing information about microbes and microbiomes. They describe using literature supported science communication techniques and prefer a video format possibly via social media to share this information.

Emotions affecting microbial worldview

Emotions affect how and when we perceive, seek, and obtain information [24, 25, 41]. Given the role that emotions can play in information processing, questions related to RQ5 help us understand how the publics’ emotions affect their microbial worldview and perceive others. These emotions related to microbial information fell into two main categories: emotions towards self and perceptions of others. Many participants mentioned a variety of emotions throughout the interview. The most common emotions towards self were a lack of self-efficacy (96.7%), apathy (56.7%), curiosity (43.3%), self-efficacy (43.3%), cognitive overload (26.7%), and fear (23.3%) about microbes and microbiomes. Self-efficacy has been defined a person’s perceived competence in their ability to perform a task or achieve a desired outcome, in this case, their ability to understand or explain microbial knowledge, which can affect information management [23, 41, 68–70]. Some participants felt lack of self-efficacy towards some topics but presence of self-efficacy towards other topics. Predominately, individuals experienced a lack of self-efficacy during interviews, with some doubting their own abilities and knowledge of the subject and expressing that they felt ignorant in front of the interviewer. Others had this lack of self-efficacy transform into curiosity about microbes, or they portrayed experiencing cognitive overload.

“I feel like I have an okay grasp on how digestion is affected by them [microbes]. I’d be curious if it is affecting other systems in the body. I am curious about… what they’re doing in the air if they’re doing anything… I guess I’d be curious what advances are being made right now… like fuel or climate-related things… I don’t know if they’re working on like cancer treatments or stuff like that.” (P18)

“One of the hurdles that you have is that you don’t know who’s putting up material. The individuals, or if they represent an organization and many times it’s very contradictory. That one person is telling you to do this, and the other person is telling you, “No, do that”. It’s a juxtaposition between the two of them. They’re clashing, and I have no idea as to who I am going to listen to at this point. Do I listen to one? Do I listen to the other? Do I listen to neither? They [the public] can’t listen to both, because the information is contradictory.” (P27)

Participants’ perceptions of others fell into six categories: disease-focused, ignorant, intimidation, apathy, knowledgeable, and expertise. Most participants (90%) assumed that others knew about as much as or less than they knew about microbes and microbiomes.

“I definitely think they if they’re not like you studying this [the interviewer], they know just as much as me, which is nothing or less than that. Maybe I just think that to make myself feel better, but I do. I feel like people don’t really know what a microbe is, especially since they’re [microbe related products] something we advertise to people…[the term “microbe”] is a buzzword sometimes. I don’t think people know very much about them.” (P9)

Similarly, some participants (56.7%) described feelings of apathy in themselves and would often ascribe it to others as well (50%).

“This probably isn’t a good answer, but I’m kind of apathetic. There’s not like anything I need to know.” (P30)

“My guess [is] the average Joe couldn’t care less about it.” (P26)

Participants (70%) perceived those with a background in science, technology, engineering, or math (STEM) fields or a medical degree as having microbial “expertise”. At the same time, some participants (66.7%) noted that people without a STEM background are knowledgeable about microbes, primarily through news media or experience with disease.

“I think a lot of people don’t know what they are. They’re not scientists… it [the term “microbes”] sounds intimidating and complicated, so I feel like, unless you’re a scientist… maybe if you have a special interest in that kind of research, you probably just know that they are small.” (P24)

“I feel like at this point with COVID, we’ve all had a lot of knowledge or education about cover[ing] your cough, wear[ing] a mask, stay[ing] home when you’re sick. Although a lot of people still aren’t doing those things. So, I guess we could probably use a reminder now and then.” (P19)

Generally, participants thought that others had equivalent or less knowledge than they did about microbes and microbiomes. These perceptions did not apply to those who study microbes and microbiomes. Some describe feeling apathetic, fearful, or overwhelmed with information about microbes and microbiomes while others felt curious or confident about their knowledge especially when it related to other interests that they had. Understanding emotions that underlie the publics’ perceptions of microbes, microbiomes, and others illustrates potential barriers and opportunities for science communication.

Discussion

With microbial research constantly evolving and an unprecedented wealth of information available, it is overwhelming for both scientists and non-scientists to navigate information-seeking and sharing about microbes and microbiomes. Uncertainty in science is an ever-present reality that challenges science communication efforts [25, 38–41]. Similarly, there is much investigation about how to communicate concepts about microbes and microbiomes [20, 22, 29–32], but many of these studies have focused on a particular infectious disease and have not addressed microbial worldviews holistically. This study investigates public perceptions of microbes and microbiomes through semi-structured interviews and a survey, identifying current microbial knowledge, channels of microbial information, and future directions for science communication. Using the Theory of Motivated Information Management–which connects how people handle uncertainty, emotions, and trust in the efficacy of information providers–as well as Lasswell’s model of communication–which analyzes how messages from particular communicators to particular audiences have certain impacts–as theoretical foundations, we evaluated how individuals’ emotions affect their microbial worldview [41, 48, 49]. We show that stakeholders are considering what, when, how, and who should be sharing microbial information guided by their personal experience.

Targeting audience pre-existing and desired future knowledge

To generate effective science communication strategies about microbes and microbiomes, it is important to identify audience’s existing knowledge and knowledge gaps (RQ1). Similarly, it is also beneficial to identify what people want to know or think their peers should know about the microbial world (RQ3). Our work notes that while individuals are familiar with the relationship between microbes and disease at a broad level, some participants are also aware of some positive functions of microbes and microbiomes. Creating more awareness of the many industries that microbes already are a part of, such as food, cosmetics, or pharmaceutical industries, may garner greater appreciation and less fear of microbes [9, 14, 35, 42, 71].

Most participants wanted to know general information about microbes and microbiomes including definitions. The data indicate that participants may not know distinct differences between microbes or are unfamiliar with microbe-related terms. Understanding general knowledge about microbes and microbiomes was cited by almost all participants (76.7%) as important for microbial messaging. Lacking this knowledge may lead to confusion about therapeutic interventions or science communication efforts using these terms. For example, other studies have shown low perceived risk and knowledge about antibiotic resistance despite it being among the top ten threats for global health [72–74]. Misconceptions about antibiotics and what types of microbes they are effective against may lead to antibiotic misuse [72, 73]. Clarifying this confusion with targeted interventions may reduce misconceptions and improve health behaviors around issue like antibiotic resistance.

Interestingly, many participants mentioned other interests they had that led them to microbial knowledge. Interests related to human health, specifically nutrition and gut health, and holistic and natural remedies were most common among participants. These interests acted as a catalyst for learning microbial information through leisure activities. These participants were also more aware of functions of microbes and microbiomes typically related to their interests. This corresponded with what participants wanted to know about microbes which generally had a human-centric focus, either as pathogens or how they benefit us. Specifically, people wanted information they could use that could directly impact their lives, which includes disease prevention messaging. Describing how microbes and microbiomes play a role in systems that individuals already have an interest in may be an effective way to share microbial information, and such a strategy could be applied for introducing other scientific topics that have indirect or direct relationships to areas of interest for specific audiences. Deliberate science communication efforts targeting information the public wants to know will aid in crafting meaningful messages which can result in increased scientific engagement.

Aligning microbial messaging to socio-scientific issues using relevant channels and social networks

When asking individuals where they learned information about microbes and microbiomes (RQ2) and where information should be shared in the future (RQ4), many mentioned school settings. Science education research has identified multiple intervention strategies to improve science literacy in the classroom [7, 8, 42, 66, 71, 75–78]. While it is important for school-aged children to learn microbial information, research and circumstances arise where scientific consensus about microbes changes, and there is still a need to share information with those no longer in school.

When describing instances where participants received knowledge as adults, information was received via social media, internet searches, and word of mouth which can include more misconceptions or misinformation [10, 11, 27, 28, 34, 79, 80]. Social media has contributed to the spread of misinformation, and much research has gone into how to address misinformation on social media [10, 27, 28, 36, 37, 81]. Even though other research and our participants both perceive that social media is not a trustworthy way to receive information [82], our participants report consuming and suggest sharing science information via social media. The reach of social media to more individuals was mentioned as a benefit of social media as a channel. Recommendations include working with content creators that individuals already engage with to broaden the reach of science messaging. These channels are spaces where individuals already received information and can be targeted by science communicators in collaboration with existing content creators to correct misinformation. Engaging with the public and correcting misinformation on social media will require more research to identify best practices and will doubtlessly result in missteps as it may prove difficult to craft messaging suited for a broad audience. Although, choosing to join the conversation provides a chance to improve the ongoing discourse.

Additionally, empowering individuals to correct misinformation within their social groups or social media has been proposed as a strategy and highlights the importance of science literacy and identity [11, 62, 83–87]. Particularly, individuals with interests that led them to microbial information often wanted others to know about the positive functional roles of microbes and microbiomes. They often described sharing what they learned to others through personal interactions. Other participants explained learning about microbes and microbiomes through personal interactions with family or friends with special interests or science education. These relationships may be utilized to share messaging to those within social networks. Future work should examine the role of these interactions in acquiring microbial knowledge compared to other non-social learning methods. Knowledge about where individuals receive information about microbes and microbiomes and their interests can be leveraged for future science communication campaigns by tapping into existing channels of sharing information, topics that individuals will seek out, or social networks.

Fostering collaboration between microbiologist, social scientists, and communicators

When examining who participants want communicating microbial messages (RQ4), our results highlight the importance of scientists and doctors as a part of the science communication efforts [88–90]. Participants’ perceptions of others were often worse or similar to how participants viewed themselves, which did not apply to how participants viewed those with a STEM background. Many individuals desired information to come from researchers with scientific training. Any reservations about scientists and doctors sharing this information related to the delivery of the microbial information. While participants wanted scientists and doctors to share microbial information, there was a lack of confidence in how effectively those messages would be shared. Scientists were often stereotyped as passionate but boring communicators [91, 92]. To address this, science communication initiatives like “TED talks” have shown success in sharing science stories with non-scientists [65, 93, 94], yet further work needs to be done to communicate research in realistic and entertaining ways. Furthermore, the expertise of those in communication fields are needed to refine science messaging and incorporate best practices. Participants want concise messaging from trusted sources in plain language with exciting visuals. Communicating in this way requires skill, knowledge of your audience, and expertise in evidence-based science communication. This may be done in through integration of science communication into formal scientific training which has been shown to increase science identity and inclusion in science [95–100] as well as collaboration between communicators and scientists. Some scientists’ perceptions of the public as unable to comprehend or uninterested in science provides another barrier to science communication [85, 101–103]. Stepping away from the deficit model of science communication and valuing the expertise of the public would encourage scientists to engage in conversations with the public but also may increase their willingness to correct misinformation [85, 98]. Our data also suggest that scientists should embrace their identities outside of science to increase their relatability and humanity when participating in science communication, which enables connection with others holding similar identities [98, 104–106]. Such boundary spanning may have the added benefit of encouraging others with a shared identity to pursue a career in science [96, 97, 107, 108].

When advising scientists and doctors as communicators, participants typically mentioned the concept of “trust” and “trusted sources”. People tend to trust others they have a personal relationship with but trust different professionals based on their profession [11, 34, 82, 83]. For example, despite a slight decline in confidence in recent years, public trust in scientists and medical scientists remains high while trust in journalists and political leaders is comparatively low [82]. In accordance with this research, some participants advised against sharing science messaging from governmental institutions stating that others may view those sources as more biased [82, 109]. Participants instead recommended sharing information using channels that individuals already engage with, specifically citing social media. Some participants also mentioned specific social media influencers as trusted sources, typically associated with other interests. Benefits of scientists engaging on social media platforms include dispelling misinformation, increasing the visibility of research findings, and professional networking [110–112]. Despite this, many scientists remain reluctant to share science on social media platforms, not knowing where to begin, worrying about contribution to misinformation through unclear language and struggling to incorporate it into the workday [110, 111, 113]. Through collaboration with institution communicators and existing content creators as well as promoting media training for scientists and graduate trainees, scientists can increase their participation in science conversations on social media and through relationships with people in their daily lives.

Appealing to people’s values and emotions

Perceptions of self and others impact information processing and must be understood when crafting communications (RQ5) [23, 85, 100, 107]. Feeling apathetic, fearful, or overwhelmed with information about microbes and microbiomes can inhibit information processing [24–26, 114, 115]. Additionally, increased levels of intolerance to uncertainty are associated with reduced self-efficacy levels [23, 69, 70]. Addressing negative emotions through targeted messaging can improve understanding and appreciation for science [25, 71, 115–117]. Creating relevant, unified messaging that addresses uncertainty will increase public understanding and self-efficacy [25, 35, 38, 39]. While participants viewed those with STEM trainings as “experts”, they often lacked self-efficacy, which impacts perceptions and health behaviors [23, 35, 42, 107]. Participants often had a lack of self-efficacy, doubting their abilities to obtain or understand microbial knowledge, especially when they did not express an interest that led them to microbial knowledge. Adult learning research indicates, as our participants recommended, that “fun” increases motivation and attention, improving learning outcomes [67, 118]. Connecting microbial information to fields that interest people already can make the “intimidating” task of learning about microbes and microbiomes fun. Future work should examine the benefits of interventions that connect microbial information to participants other interests and subsequent effects on emotions as well as benefits of interventions connecting microbial researchers to people with shared identities via boundary spanning.

Limitations

According to our data, our participants are highly educated with 80% of our participants having a bachelor’s degree or higher compared to the United States as a whole (37.7%) [119]. These higher education demographics may be elevated since participant recruitment occurred in the vicinity of a college town in a highly educated state. Confidence in scientists has been shown to increase correlated to education level and income, which may have affected participant responses [120]. As mentioned in the methods, our survey response rate (60%; 18/30 participants) limits the conclusion that can be made about demographics-based information. Capturing perspectives of older individuals, individuals from more regions of the United States, individuals without college education, non-white individuals, and more men may identify additional themes not depicted here. Future work should examine how generable these themes are to others across the United States through large scale surveys and assess active messaging to specific demographics groups. Additionally, participants responded to a flyer about microbes and microbiomes which might attract individuals who have some knowledge about them. While this study provides a basis for the publics’ perceptions of microbes and microbiomes, future study design can test proposed interventions to provide relevant microbial science communication to specific stakeholders and communities.

Conclusion and establishing the groundwork for future research

Together, this work identifies the importance of 1) recognizing the pre-existing and desired future knowledge of audiences (RQ1/RQ3), 2) connecting with larger socio-scientific issues people already care about on social media and through social networks (RQ2/RQ4), 3) collaboration between microbiologists, social scientists, and communicators (RQ4), and 4) connecting with people’s values and emotions (RQ5). Specifically, interests like nutrition and gut health may lead people to microbial knowledge and may be leveraged to share microbial messaging. People may benefit from knowledge about differences between microbes and the ecological functions they have in systems that people value. Future work should examine public knowledge quantitatively to delve deeper into science literacy and its relationship to motivated information seeking. Additionally, our results indicate that individuals want this information communicated on social media and from scientists with whom they share social identities. Research into best practices for communicating microbial topics on social media and careful crafting of messaging should be considered when communicating online as not to contribute to misinformation or the erosion of trust in scientists. Seeing the humanity of scientists promoted trust and better communication outcomes. Information should be unified, clear, and fun to mitigate the distress of scientific uncertainty and other negative emotions while increasing self-efficacy and science literacy. For the most effective communication, scientists should partner with science communication researchers and communicators, implementing tested communication techniques targeted to specific audiences. These findings set the foundation for research to guide future microbial science communication interventions. With this qualitative study, we have identified several themes and topics of interest to audiences, which sets the foundation for quantification, via large landscape surveys. Additionally, future work should examine the complex interplay of social and culture factors that may influence information seeking and processing to develop audience specific messaging. Overall, this work highlights how non-microbial related interest may lead people to microbial knowledge and gives an overview of desired microbial communication topics and techniques. Ultimately, implementation of this work will lead to improved appreciation for and working knowledge of microbes and microbiomes.

Supporting information

S1 File. Final interview facilitation guide.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0312427.s001

(DOCX)

S2 File. Post-interview survey questions.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0312427.s002

(DOCX)

References

  1. 1. Lloyd-Price J, Arze C, Ananthakrishnan AN, Schirmer M, Avila-Pacheco J, Poon TW, et al. Multi-omics of the gut microbial ecosystem in inflammatory bowel diseases. Nature. 2019;569(7758):655–62. pmid:31142855
  2. 2. Nayfach S, Roux S, Seshadri R, Udwary D, Varghese N, Schulz F, et al. A genomic catalog of Earth’s microbiomes. Nature Biotechnology. 2020; pmid:33169036
  3. 3. Jansson JK, Hofmockel KS. Soil microbiomes and climate change. Nature Reviews Microbiology [Internet]. 2020;18(1):35–46. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41579-019-0265-7 pmid:31586158
  4. 4. ASM.org [Internet]. [cited 2024 Apr 15]. What Counts as a Microbe? Available from: https://asm.org:443/Articles/2021/April/What-Counts-as-a-Microbe
  5. 5. Berg G, Rybakova D, Fischer D, Cernava T, Vergès MCC, Charles T, et al. Microbiome definition re-visited: old concepts and new challenges. Microbiome [Internet]. 2020 Jun 30 [cited 2024 Apr 15];8(1):103. Available from: pmid:32605663
  6. 6. Timmis K, Cavicchioli R, Garcia JL, Nogales B, Chavarría M, Stein L, et al. The urgent need for microbiology literacy in society. Environmental Microbiology. 2019;21(5):1513–28. pmid:30912268
  7. 7. Kelp NC, McCartney M, Sarvary MA, Shaffer JF, Wolyniak MJ. Developing Science Literacy in Students and Society: Theory, Research, and Practice. J Microbiol Biol Educ. 2023 Aug;24(2):e00058–23. pmid:37614885
  8. 8. Timmis K. A Road to Microbiology Literacy (and More): an Opportunity for a Paradigm Change in Teaching. J Microbiol Biol Educ [Internet]. [cited 2024 Mar 7];24(1):e00019–23. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10117087/ pmid:37089226
  9. 9. Promoting Science Literacy and Awareness across the Globe: the Role of Scientists as Science Ambassadors | Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education [Internet]. [cited 2024 Apr 2]. Available from: https://journals.asm.org/doi/10.1128/jmbe.00041-23
  10. 10. Rocha YM, de Moura GA, Desidério GA, de Oliveira CH, Lourenço FD, de Figueiredo Nicolete LD. The impact of fake news on social media and its influence on health during the COVID-19 pandemic: a systematic review. J Public Health (Berl) [Internet]. 2021 Oct 9 [cited 2023 Feb 27]; Available from: https://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10389-021-01658-z pmid:34660175
  11. 11. Agley J, Xiao Y, Thompson EE, Chen X, Golzarri-Arroyo L. Intervening on Trust in Science to Reduce Belief in COVID-19 Misinformation and Increase COVID-19 Preventive Behavioral Intentions: Randomized Controlled Trial. J Med Internet Res [Internet]. 2021 Oct 14 [cited 2023 Mar 1];23(10):e32425. Available from: https://www.jmir.org/2021/10/e32425 pmid:34581678
  12. 12. The Lancet Infectious Diseases. The COVID-19 infodemic. The Lancet Infectious Diseases [Internet]. 2020 Aug 1 [cited 2024 Mar 7];20(8):875. Available from: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S147330992030565X
  13. 13. Krause NM, Freiling I, Scheufele DA. The “Infodemic” Infodemic: Toward a More Nuanced Understanding of Truth-Claims and the Need for (Not) Combatting Misinformation. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science [Internet]. 2022 Mar 1 [cited 2024 Apr 1];700(1):112–23. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1177/00027162221086263
  14. 14. Natarajan A, Bhatt AS. Microbes and microbiomes in 2020 and beyond. Nat Commun [Internet]. 2020 Oct 5 [cited 2024 Apr 1];11(1):4988. Available from: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-18850-6 pmid:33020496
  15. 15. Charbonneau MR, Isabella VM, Li N, Kurtz CB. Developing a new class of engineered live bacterial therapeutics to treat human diseases. Nature Communications [Internet]. 2020;11(1):1–11. Available from: pmid:31911652
  16. 16. Human Microbiome Market Size & Share Analysis—Growth Trends & Forecasts (2024–2029) [Internet]. Available from: https://www.mordorintelligence.com/industry-reports/human-microbiome-market
  17. 17. Solbach Thomas, Kwisda Sebastian. The accelerating rise of microbiome-based therapeutics [Internet]. 2023. Available from: https://www.strategyand.pwc.com/de/en/industries/pharma-life-science/impact-microbiome-therapeutics.html
  18. 18. Responsible stewardship for communicating microbiome research to the press and public | Nature Medicine [Internet]. [cited 2024 Mar 6]. Available from: https://www-nature-com.ezproxy2.library.colostate.edu/articles/s41591-019-0470-y
  19. 19. Microbiology by numbers. Nat Rev Microbiol [Internet]. 2011 Sep [cited 2024 Mar 8];9(9):628–628. Available from: https://www.nature.com/articles/nrmicro2644
  20. 20. Yeo SK, Sun Y, McKasy M, Shugart EC. Disgusting microbes: The effect of disgust on perceptions of risks related to modifying microbiomes. Public Underst Sci [Internet]. 2019 May 1 [cited 2023 Jul 11];28(4):433–48. Available from: pmid:30827192
  21. 21. Robinson JM, Cameron R. Germaphobia! Does Our Relationship With and Knowledge of Biodiversity Affect Our Attitudes Toward Microbes? Front Psychol [Internet]. 2021 Jun 30 [cited 2024 Mar 7];12. Available from: https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.678752/full pmid:34276497
  22. 22. Karadon HD, Şahin N. Primary school students’ basic knowledge, opinions and risk perceptions about microorganisms. Procedia—Social and Behavioral Sciences [Internet]. 2010 [cited 2024 Feb 22];2(2):4398–401. Available from: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S1877042810007408
  23. 23. Raeder F, Karbach L, Zlomuzica A. Low Perceived Self-Efficacy Impedes Discriminative Fear Learning. Front Psychol [Internet]. 2019 Jun 18 [cited 2024 Mar 11];10. Available from: https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01191/full pmid:31275188
  24. 24. Muis KR, Chevrier M, Denton CA, Losenno KM. Epistemic Emotions and Epistemic Cognition Predict Critical Thinking About Socio-Scientific Issues. Frontiers in Education [Internet]. 2021 [cited 2024 Feb 13];6. Available from: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/feduc.2021.669908
  25. 25. Nerantzaki K, Efklides A, Metallidou P. Epistemic emotions: Cognitive underpinnings and relations with metacognitive feelings. New Ideas in Psychology [Internet]. 2021 Dec 1 [cited 2024 Feb 13];63:100904. Available from: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0732118X21000532
  26. 26. Wollebæk D, Karlsen R, Steen-Johnsen K, Enjolras B. Anger, Fear, and Echo Chambers: The Emotional Basis for Online Behavior. Social Media + Society [Internet]. 2019 Apr 1 [cited 2024 Apr 5];5(2):2056305119829859. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305119829859
  27. 27. Sylvia Chou WY, Gaysynsky A, Cappella JN. Where We Go From Here: Health Misinformation on Social Media. Am J Public Health [Internet]. 2020 Oct [cited 2023 Feb 27];110(S3):S273–5. Available from: https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/full/10.2105/AJPH.2020.305905
  28. 28. Scheufele DA, Krause NM. Science audiences, misinformation, and fake news. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA [Internet]. 2019 Apr 16 [cited 2023 Feb 27];116(16):7662–9. Available from: https://pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.1805871115 pmid:30642953
  29. 29. Serengbe GB, Moyen JM, Fioboy R, Beyam EN, Kango C, Bangue C, et al. Knowledge and perceptions about malaria in communities in four districts of the Central African Republic. BMC Res Notes [Internet]. 2015 Apr 19 [cited 2024 Jan 31];8:162. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4405816/ pmid:25898111
  30. 30. Zerdo Z, Geertruyden JPV, Massebo F, Biresaw G, Shewangizawu M, Tunje A, et al. Parents’ perception on cause of malaria and their malaria prevention experience among school-aged children in Kutcha district, Southern Ethiopia; qualitative study. PLOS ONE [Internet]. 2020 Oct 13 [cited 2024 Jan 31];15(10):e0239728. Available from: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0239728 pmid:33048941
  31. 31. Jones TF, Larson C, McCauley T, Gottfried K, Schaffner W. Public Knowledge, Attitudes and Behaviors Regarding West Nile Virus. Infectious Diseases in Clinical Practice [Internet]. 2005 Jan [cited 2024 Jan 31];13(1):2. Available from: https://journals.lww.com/infectdis/fulltext/2005/01000/public_knowledge,_attitudes_and_behaviors.2.aspx
  32. 32. Leslie A, Okunromade O, Sarker A. Public Perceptions About Monkeypox on Twitter: Thematic Analysis. JMIR Formative Research [Internet]. 2023 Nov 3 [cited 2024 Feb 22];7(1):e48710. Available from: https://formative.jmir.org/2023/1/e48710 pmid:37921866
  33. 33. Wood D, Brumfiel G. NPR: Health News. Pro-Trump counties now have far higher COVID death rates. Misinformation is to blame. Available from: https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2021/12/05/1059828993/data-vaccine-misinformation-trump-counties-covid-death-rate
  34. 34. Ecker UKH, Lewandowsky S, Cook J, Schmid P, Fazio LK, Brashier N, et al. The psychological drivers of misinformation belief and its resistance to correction. Nat Rev Psychol [Internet]. 2022 Jan [cited 2024 Apr 5];1(1):13–29. Available from: https://www.nature.com/articles/s44159-021-00006-y
  35. 35. Ghio D, Lawes-Wickwar S, Tang MY, Epton T, Howlett N, Jenkinson E, et al. What influences people’s responses to public health messages for managing risks and preventing infectious diseases? A rapid systematic review of the evidence and recommendations. BMJ Open [Internet]. 2021 Nov 10 [cited 2024 Mar 11];11(11):e048750. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8587350/ pmid:34764167
  36. 36. Tadros E, Morgan AA, Durante KA. Criticism, Compassion, and Conspiracy Theories: A Thematic Analysis of What Twitter Users Are Saying About COVID-19 in Correctional Settings. Int J Offender Ther Comp Criminol [Internet]. 2024 Mar 1 [cited 2024 Feb 22];68(4):370–88. Available from: pmid:35703315
  37. 37. Kim HK, Tandoc EC. Consequences of Online Misinformation on COVID-19: Two Potential Pathways and Disparity by eHealth Literacy. Front Psychol [Internet]. 2022 Feb 14 [cited 2023 Feb 27];13:783909. Available from: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.783909/full
  38. 38. Gustafson A, Rice RE. A review of the effects of uncertainty in public science communication. Public Underst Sci [Internet]. 2020 Aug [cited 2023 Mar 27];29(6):614–33. Available from: http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0963662520942122 pmid:32677865
  39. 39. Lowe AE, Voo TC, Lee LM, Dineen Gillespie KK, Feig C, Ferdinand AO, et al. Uncertainty, scarcity and transparency: Public health ethics and risk communication in a pandemic. The Lancet Regional Health—Americas [Internet]. 2022 Dec 1 [cited 2024 Mar 11];16:100374. Available from: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2667193X22001910 pmid:36777151
  40. 40. Getson JM, Church SP, Radulski BG, Sjöstrand AE, Lu J, Prokopy LS. Understanding scientists’ communication challenges at the intersection of climate and agriculture. PLoS One [Internet]. 2022 Aug 2 [cited 2023 Jan 20];17(8):e0269927. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9345487/ pmid:35917369
  41. 41. Afifi WA, Weiner JL. Toward a Theory of Motivated Information Management. Communication Theory [Internet]. 2004 May 1 [cited 2024 Mar 8];14(2):167–90. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.2004.tb00310.x
  42. 42. Faccio E, Costa N, Losasso C, Cappa V, Mantovani C, Cibin V, et al. What programs work to promote health for children? Exploring beliefs on microorganisms and on food safety control behavior in primary schools. Food Control [Internet]. 2013 Oct 1 [cited 2023 Jul 11];33(2):320–9. Available from: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0956713513001278
  43. 43. Climate Change in the American Mind [Internet]. Yale Program on Climate Change Communication. [cited 2023 Jan 20]. Available from: https://climatecommunication.yale.edu/about/projects/climate-change-in-the-american-mind/
  44. 44. van Baal K, Stiel S, Schulte P. Public Perceptions of Climate Change and Health—A Cross-Sectional Survey Study. Int J Environ Res Public Health [Internet]. 2023 Jan 13 [cited 2023 Nov 3];20(2):1464. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9859516/ pmid:36674220
  45. 45. Shi J, Visschers VHM, Siegrist M. Public Perception of Climate Change: The Importance of Knowledge and Cultural Worldviews. Risk Analysis [Internet]. 2015 [cited 2023 Nov 3];35(12):2183–201. Available from: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/risa.12406 pmid:26033253
  46. 46. Stecula DA, Merkley E. Framing Climate Change: Economics, Ideology, and Uncertainty in American News Media Content From 1988 to 2014. Frontiers in Communication [Internet]. 2019 [cited 2023 Jan 20];4. Available from: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fcomm.2019.00006
  47. 47. Badullovich N, Grant WJ, Colvin RM. Framing climate change for effective communication: a systematic map. Environ Res Lett [Internet]. 2020 Nov [cited 2023 Jan 20];15(12):123002. Available from: https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aba4c7
  48. 48. Lasswell Harold. The Structure and Function of Communication in Society.
  49. 49. Sapienza ZS, Iyer N, Veenstra AS. Reading Lasswell’s Model of Communication Backward: Three Scholarly Misconceptions. Mass Communication and Society [Internet]. 2015 Sep 3 [cited 2024 Apr 5];18(5):599–622. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/15205436.2015.1063666
  50. 50. Kahan DM, Landrum A, Carpenter K, Helft L, Hall Jamieson K. Science Curiosity and Political Information Processing. Political Psychology [Internet]. 2017 [cited 2024 May 10];38(S1):179–99. Available from: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/pops.12396
  51. 51. Motta M, Chapman D, Haglin K, Kahan D. Reducing the Administrative Demands of the Science Curiosity Scale: A Validation Study. International Journal of Public Opinion Research [Internet]. 2021 Jun 1 [cited 2024 May 10];33(2):215–33. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1093/ijpor/edz049
  52. 52. Braun V, Clarke V. Toward good practice in thematic analysis: Avoiding common problems and be(com)ing a knowing researcher. Int J Transgend Health [Internet]. [cited 2024 Sep 12];24(1):1–6. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9879167/ pmid:36713144
  53. 53. Jowsey T, Deng C, Weller J. General-purpose thematic analysis: a useful qualitative method for anaesthesia research. BJA Educ [Internet]. 2021 Dec [cited 2024 Sep 12];21(12):472–8. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8606608/ pmid:34840819
  54. 54. Glaser BG. The Constant Comparative Method of Qualitative Analysis. Social Problems [Internet]. 1965 [cited 2024 May 7];12(4):436–45. Available from: https://www.jstor.org/stable/798843
  55. 55. VERBI Software. (2021). MAXQDA 2022 [computer software]. Berlin, Germany: VERBI Software. Available from maxqda.com.
    • 56. McHugh ML. Interrater reliability: the kappa statistic. Biochem Med (Zagreb) [Internet]. 2012 Oct 15 [cited 2023 Sep 28];22(3):276–82. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3900052/
    • 57. Landis JR, Koch GG. An application of hierarchical kappa-type statistics in the assessment of majority agreement among multiple observers. Biometrics. 1977 Jun;33(2):363–74. pmid:884196
    • 58. Cofie N, Braund H, Dalgarno N. Eight ways to get a grip on intercoder reliability using qualitative-based measures. Can Med Educ J [Internet]. 2022 May 3 [cited 2024 Sep 12];13(2):73–6. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9099179/ pmid:35572014
    • 59. Roberts K, Dowell A, Nie JB. Attempting rigour and replicability in thematic analysis of qualitative research data; a case study of codebook development. BMC Medical Research Methodology [Internet]. 2019 Mar 28 [cited 2024 Sep 12];19(1):66. Available from: pmid:30922220
    • 60. Gin LE, Wiesenthal NJ, Ferreira I, Cooper KM. PhDepression: Examining How Graduate Research and Teaching Affect Depression in Life Sciences PhD Students. LSE [Internet]. 2021 Sep [cited 2023 Aug 31];20(3):ar41. Available from: https://www.lifescied.org/doi/full/10.1187/cbe.21-03-0077 pmid:34309412
    • 61. wilson_spring_2016.pdf [Internet]. [cited 2024 Jan 31]. Available from: https://economics.harvard.edu/files/economics/files/wilson_spring_2016.pdf
      • 62. Yeo SK, McKasy M. Emotion and humor as misinformation antidotes. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA [Internet]. 2021 Apr 13 [cited 2023 Mar 1];118(15):e2002484118. Available from: https://pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.2002484118 pmid:33837148
      • 63. Yeo SK, Su LYF, Cacciatore MA, Zhang JS, McKasy M. The differential effects of humor on three scientific issues: global warming, artificial intelligence, and microbiomes. International Journal of Science Education, Part B [Internet]. 2023 Jan 2 [cited 2023 Jul 14];13(1):59–83. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/21548455.2022.2123259
      • 64. Borowiec BG. Ten simple rules for scientists engaging in science communication. PLOS Computational Biology [Internet]. 2023 Jul 20 [cited 2023 Nov 1];19(7):e1011251. Available from: https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article?id=10.1371/journal.pcbi.1011251 pmid:37471282
      • 65. Dahlstrom MF. Using narratives and storytelling to communicate science with nonexpert audiences. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences [Internet]. 2014 Sep 16 [cited 2024 Mar 12];111(supplement_4):13614–20. Available from: https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1320645111 pmid:25225368
      • 66. Killikelly A. Using the Tools of Informal Science Education to Connect Science and the Public. Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education [Internet]. 2018 Mar 30 [cited 2023 Jul 14];19(1):10.1128/jmbe.v19i1.1427. Available from: https://journals.asm.org/doi/10.1128/jmbe.v19i1.1427 pmid:29904533
      • 67. McGenity TJ, Gessesse A, Hallsworth JE, Garcia Cela E, Verheecke-Vaessen C, Wang F, et al. Visualizing the invisible: class excursions to ignite children’s enthusiasm for microbes. Microb Biotechnol. 2020 Jul;13(4):844–87. pmid:32406115
      • 68. Bandura A. Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY, US: W H Freeman/Times Books/ Henry Holt & Co; 1997. ix, 604 p. (Self-efficacy: The exercise of control).
        • 69. Flemming D, Feinkohl I, Cress U, Kimmerle J. Individual Uncertainty and the Uncertainty of Science: The Impact of Perceived Conflict and General Self-Efficacy on the Perception of Tentativeness and Credibility of Scientific Information. Front Psychol [Internet]. 2015 Dec 1 [cited 2024 May 7];6. Available from: https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01859/full pmid:26648902
        • 70. Kestler-Peleg M, Mahat-Shamir M, Pitcho-Prelorentzos S, Kagan M. Intolerance to uncertainty and self-efficacy as mediators between personality traits and adjustment disorder in the face of the COVID-19 pandemic. Curr Psychol [Internet]. 2023 [cited 2024 Apr 6];42(10):8504–14. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10105150/ pmid:37193099
        • 71. Smyth DS, Chen S, Sompanya G, Metz M, Conefrey T. How Getting Friendly with Bacteria Can Promote Student Appreciation of Microbial Diversity and Their Civic Scientific Literacy. Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education [Internet]. 2022 Jul 5 [cited 2023 Jul 11];23(2):e00055–22. Available from: https://journals.asm.org/doi/10.1128/jmbe.00055-22 pmid:36061318
        • 72. Carter RR, Sun J, Jump RLP. A Survey and Analysis of the American Public’s Perceptions and Knowledge About Antibiotic Resistance. Open Forum Infect Dis [Internet]. 2016 May 30 [cited 2023 Nov 3];3(3):ofw112. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4929486/ pmid:27382598
        • 73. Wemette M, Safi AG, Beauvais W, Ceres K, Shapiro M, Moroni P, et al. New York State dairy farmers’ perceptions of antibiotic use and resistance: A qualitative interview study. Johnson TJ, editor. PLoS ONE[Internet]. 2020 May 27 [cited 2024 Feb 22];15(5):e0232937. Available from: https://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0232937 pmid:32459799
        • 74. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (U.S.). Antibiotic resistance threats in the United States, 2019 [Internet]. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (U.S.); 2019 Nov [cited 2024 Mar 28]. Available from: https://www.cdc.gov/drugresistance/pdf/threats-report/2019-ar-threats-report-508.pdf
          • 75. Fatton M, Schneiter A, Allisiardi M, Hänni L, Hauser G, Gonçalves-Fernandes Y, et al. Microbes Go to School: Using Microbiology and Service-Learning to Increase Science Awareness and Fostering the Relationship Between Universities and the General Public. Frontiers in Education [Internet]. 2021 [cited 2023 Nov 3];6. Available from: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/feduc.2021.735297
          • 76. dela Cruz TEE, Aril-dela Cruz JV. Communicating Science through Editorial Cartoons in Microbiology Classrooms. Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education [Internet]. 2018 Mar 30 [cited 2023 Jul 14];19(1) Available from: https://journals.asm.org/doi/10.1128/jmbe.v19i1.1496 pmid:29904513
          • 77. Todd K, Haupt G, Kollmann EK, Pfeifle S. Fostering Conversation about Synthetic Biology Between Publics and Scientists: A Comparison of Approaches and Outcomes. Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education [Internet]. 2018 Mar 30 [cited 2023 Jul 14];19(1) Available from: https://journals.asm.org/doi/10.1128/jmbe.v19i1.1434 pmid:29904531
          • 78. Ricci K, McLauchlin B, Hua J. Impact of a Science Art Exhibit on Public Interest and Student Comprehension of Disease Ecology Research. Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education [Internet]. 2023 Feb [cited 2023 Feb 1];0(0):e00162–22. Available from: https://journals.asm.org/doi/10.1128/jmbe.00162-22 pmid:37089231
          • 79. Jun SY, Ju TW, Park HK, Lee JC, Kim TM. Information distortion in word-of-mouth retransmission: the effects of retransmitter intention and source expertise. Asian Business & Management [Internet]. 2023 Apr 15 [cited 2024 Mar 21];1–29. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10105362/
          • 80. Berger J. Word of mouth and interpersonal communication: A review and directions for future research. Journal of Consumer Psychology [Internet]. 2014 [cited 2024 Mar 8];24(4):586–607. Available from: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1016/j.jcps.2014.05.002
          • 81. Treen KM d’ I., Williams HTP, O’Neill SJ. Online misinformation about climate change. WIREs Clim Change [Internet]. 2020 Sep [cited 2023 Feb 27];11(5). Available from: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/wcc.665
          • 82. Funk Cary, Gottfried Jeffrey. Pew Research Center. 2017. Niche information sources are most trusted to get the facts right about science. Available from: https://www.pewresearch.org/journalism/2017/09/20/niche-information-sources-are-most-trusted-to-get-the-facts-right-about-science/
          • 83. Cohen R, Moffatt K, Ghenai A, Yang A, Corwin M, Lin G, et al. Addressing Misinformation in Online Social Networks: Diverse Platforms and the Potential of Multiagent Trust Modeling. Information [Internet]. 2020 Nov [cited 2024 Mar 21];11(11):539. Available from: https://www.mdpi.com/2078-2489/11/11/539
          • 84. Cacciatore MA. Misinformation and public opinion of science and health: Approaches, findings, and future directions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences [Internet]. 2021 Apr 13 [cited 2023 Jan 9];118(15):e1912437117. Available from: https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1912437117 pmid:33837143
          • 85. Choi S, Anderson AA, Cagle S, Long M, Kelp N. Scientists’ deficit perception of the public impedes their behavioral intentions to correct misinformation. PLOS ONE [Internet]. 2023 Aug 2 [cited 2024 Mar 4];18(8):e0287870. Available from: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0287870 pmid:37531388
          • 86. Kligler-Vilenchik N. Collective Social Correction: Addressing Misinformation through Group Practices of Information Verification on WhatsApp. Digital Journalism [Internet]. 2022 Feb 7 [cited 2024 Mar 21];10(2):300–18. Available from: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/21670811.2021.1972020
          • 87. Komendantova N, Ekenberg L, Svahn M, Larsson A, Shah SIH, Glinos M, et al. A value-driven approach to addressing misinformation in social media. Humanit Soc Sci Commun [Internet]. 2021 Jan 29 [cited 2024 Mar 21];8(1):1–12. Available from: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-020-00702-9 pmid:38617731
          • 88. Riedlinger Michelle, Metcalfe Jenni, Baram-Tsabari Ayelet, Entradas Marta, Joubert Marina, & Massarani Luisa. Telling stories in science communication: Case studies of scholar-practitioner collaboration. Available from: https://eprints.qut.edu.au/203716/
          • 89. Davis L, Fähnrich B, Nepote AC, Riedlinger M, Trench B. Environmental Communication and Science Communication—Conversations, Connections and Collaborations. Environmental Communication [Internet]. 2018 May 19 [cited 2024 Apr 5];12(4):431–7. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2018.1436082
          • 90. Bautista JR, Zhang Y, Gwizdka J. Healthcare professionals’ acts of correcting health misinformation on social media. International Journal of Medical Informatics [Internet]. 2021 Apr 1 [cited 2024 Apr 5];148:104375. Available from: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1386505621000010 pmid:33461008
          • 91. Tintori A, Palomba R. Turn on the light on science: A research-based guide to break down popular stereotypes about science and scientists [Internet]. Ubiquity Press; 2017 [cited 2024 Apr 6]. Available from: https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctv3t5r1s
            • 92. Ruiz-Mallén I, Escalas MT. Scientists Seen by Children: A Case Study in Catalonia, Spain. Science Communication [Internet]. 2012 Aug 1 [cited 2024 Apr 6];34(4):520–45. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547011429199
            • 93. Masson M. Benefits of TED Talks. Can Fam Physician [Internet]. 2014 Dec [cited 2024 Apr 6];60(12):1080. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4264800/ pmid:25500595
            • 94. Fischer O, Jeitziner LT, Wulff DU. Affect in science communication: a data-driven analysis of TED Talks on YouTube. Humanit Soc Sci Commun [Internet]. 2024 Jan 8 [cited 2024 Apr 6];11(1):1–9. Available from: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-023-02247-z
            • 95. Brownell SE, Price JV, Steinman L. Science Communication to the General Public: Why We Need to Teach Undergraduate and Graduate Students this Skill as Part of Their Formal Scientific Training. J Undergrad Neurosci Educ [Internet]. 2013 Oct 15 [cited 2024 Mar 8];12(1):E6–10. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3852879/ pmid:24319399
            • 96. McCartney M, Roddy AB, Geiger J, Piland NC, Ribeiro MM, Lainoff A. Seeing Yourself as a Scientist: Increasing Science Identity Using Professional Development Modules Designed for Undergraduate Students. Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education [Internet]. 2022 Mar 14 [cited 2023 Dec 28];23(1):e00346–21. Available from: https://journals.asm.org/doi/10.1128/jmbe.00346-21 pmid:35784617
            • 97. Bennett N, Dudo A, Besley J. STEM GRADUATE STUDENTS’ PERSPECTIVES ON SCIENCE COMMUNICATION AND THEIR SENSE OF BELONGING IN THESE SPACES.
            • 98. Shah H, Simeon J, Fisher KQ, Eddy SL. Talking Science: Undergraduates’ Everyday Conversations as Acts of Boundary Spanning That Connect Science to Local Communities. LSE [Internet]. 2022 Mar [cited 2024 Apr 5];21(1):ar12. Available from: https://www.lifescied.org/doi/10.1187/cbe.21-06-0151 pmid:35179951
            • 99. Vickery R, Murphy K, McMillan R, Alderfer S, Donkoh J, Kelp N. Analysis of Inclusivity of Published Science Communication Curricula for Scientists and STEM Students. LSE [Internet]. 2023 Mar [cited 2023 Nov 3];22(1):ar8. Available from: https://www.lifescied.org/doi/10.1187/cbe.22-03-0040 pmid:36637377
            • 100. Murphy KM, Kelp NC. Undergraduate STEM Students’ Science Communication Skills, Science Identity, and Science Self-Efficacy Influence Their Motivations and Behaviors in STEM Community Engagement. J Microbiol Biol Educ. 2023 Apr;24(1):e00182–22. pmid:37089213
            • 101. Houtman D, Vijlbrief B, Riedijk S. Experts in science communication. EMBO reports [Internet]. 2021 Aug 4 [cited 2024 Apr 5];22(8):e52988. Available from: https://www.embopress.org/doi/full/10.15252/embr.202152988 pmid:34269513
            • 102. Dudo A, Besley J, Kahlor LA, Koh H, Copple J, Yuan S. Microbiologists’ Public Engagement Views and Behaviors. Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education [Internet]. 2018 Mar 30 [cited 2023 Jul 11];19(1) Available from: https://journals.asm.org/doi/10.1128/jmbe.v19i1.1402 pmid:29904524
            • 103. Llorente C, Revuelta G, Carrió M, Porta M. Scientists’ opinions and attitudes towards citizens’ understanding of science and their role in public engagement activities. PLOS ONE [Internet]. 2019 Nov 13 [cited 2023 Nov 3];14(11):e0224262. Available from: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0224262 pmid:31721768
            • 104. Hawkins MA, Rezazade M. MH. Knowledge boundary spanning process: synthesizing four spanning mechanisms. Ribeiro Soriano D, editor. Decision Management [Internet]. 2012 Jan 1 [cited 2024 May 7];50(10):1800–15. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1108/00251741211279611
            • 105. Bowen CD, Summersill AR, Google AN, Aadnes MG, Barnes ME. Exploring Black Undergraduate Students’ Communication and Biology Education Experiences about COVID-19 and COVID-19 Vaccines During the Pandemic. LSE [Internet]. 2023 Dec [cited 2024 May 7];22(4):ar42. Available from: https://www.lifescied.org/doi/full/10.1187/cbe.22-11-0233 pmid:37751507
            • 106. Couch B, Wybren E, de Araujo Bryan M, Niravong T, Jin Y, Bowen C, et al. Exploring Undergraduate Biology Students’ Science Communication About COVID-19. Front Educ [Internet]. 2022 Jun 16 [cited 2024 May 7];7. Available from: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/feduc.2022.859945
            • 107. Ruiz-Mallén I, Gallois S, Heras M. From White Lab Coats and Crazy Hair to Actual Scientists: Exploring the Impact of Researcher Interaction and Performing Arts on Students’ Perceptions and Motivation for Science. Science Communication [Internet]. 2018 Dec 1 [cited 2024 Mar 11];40(6):749–77. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547018808025
            • 108. Torres AG, Bottazzi ME, Wormley FL. Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion in the Microbial Sciences—the Texas Perspective. mBio [Internet]. 2021 Oct 19 [cited 2023 Dec 20];12(5):10.1128/mbio.02620-21. Available from: https://journals.asm.org/doi/10.1128/mbio.02620-21 pmid:34663093
            • 109. Pollard MS, Davis LM. Decline in Trust in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention During the COVID-19 Pandemic. Rand Health Q [Internet]. 2022 Jun 30 [cited 2024 Apr 5];9(3):23. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9242572/
            • 110. Rose KM, Markowitz EM, Brossard D. Scientists’ incentives and attitudes toward public communication. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences [Internet]. 2020 Jan 21 [cited 2024 Apr 1];117(3):1274–6. Available from: https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.1916740117 pmid:31911470
            • 111. Collins K, Shiffman D, Rock J. How Are Scientists Using Social Media in the Workplace? PLoS One [Internet]. 2016 Oct 12 [cited 2024 Mar 11];11(10):e0162680. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5061391/ pmid:27732598
            • 112. Bik HM, Goldstein MC. An Introduction to Social Media for Scientists. PLoS Biol [Internet]. 2013 Apr 23 [cited 2024 Mar 11];11(4):e1001535. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3635859/ pmid:23630451
            • 113. Ryan CD, Doerksen K. Apathy and Online Activism: An Impetus for Science and Science Communication in Universities?: International Journal of Technology, Knowledge & Society: Annual Review. International Journal of Technology, Knowledge & Society: Annual Review [Internet]. 2014 Mar [cited 2024 Apr 6];9(2):81–94. Available from: https://ezproxy2.library.colostate.edu/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=cookie,ip,url,cpid&custid=s4640792&db=asn&AN=95524833&site=ehost-live
            • 114. Kerns JG, Berenbaum H. Affective processing in overwhelmed individuals: Strategic and task considerations. Cognition and Emotion [Internet]. 2010 Jun 1 [cited 2024 Apr 6];24(4):638–60. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/02699930902927664
            • 115. Davidson DJ, Kecinski M. Emotional pathways to climate change responses. WIREs Climate Change [Internet]. 2022 [cited 2024 Apr 6];13(2):e751. Available from: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/wcc.751
            • 116. Taddicken M, Reif A. Between Evidence and Emotions: Emotional Appeals in Science Communication. Media and Communication [Internet]. 2020 Mar 18 [cited 2024 Apr 6];8(1):101–6. Available from: https://www.cogitatiopress.com/mediaandcommunication/article/view/2934
            • 117. Chou WYS, Budenz A. Considering Emotion in COVID-19 Vaccine Communication: Addressing Vaccine Hesitancy and Fostering Vaccine Confidence. Health Communication [Internet]. 2020 Dec 5 [cited 2024 Apr 6];35(14):1718–22. Available from: pmid:33124475
            • 118. Lucardie D. The Impact of Fun and Enjoyment on Adult’s Learning. Procedia—Social and Behavioral Sciences [Internet]. 2014 Aug [cited 2023 Dec 5];142:439–46. Available from: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S1877042814046242
            • 119. Census Bureau Releases New Educational Attainment Data [Internet]. 2023. Available from: https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2023/educational-attainment-data.html
              • 120. Achterberg P, de Koster W, van der Waal J. A science confidence gap: Education, trust in scientific methods, and trust in scientific institutions in the United States, 2014. Public Underst Sci [Internet]. 2017 Aug 1 [cited 2024 Apr 6];26(6):704–20. Available from: pmid:26644011