By Uwe Peters. Source: Pixabay. Most scientists strive to communicate their findings as accurately as possible. But our latest research suggests that they may sometimes encourage exaggerated interpretations without intending to, not because they overstate their findings, but because their audience understands seemingly ordinary scientific language differently. For instance, if you read sentences such as “Statins reduce cardiovascular events" or "People benefit from a Mediterranean diet,” you would probably understand them immediately. They are short and clear. They also share an important linguistic feature: they make claims about whole categories (statins, people) without saying how many people or situations they apply to. Linguists call these statements generics. Scientists use them very frequently (e.g., in biomedical research articles ), as generics make scientific writing concise and readable. But when scientists write these sentences, do readers understand them in the ...
By Martin Sedlár. Image source: Magnific. Medical research helps us diagnose diseases earlier, treat them more effectively, and prevent them entirely. But none of this would be possible without people willing to take part in studies. And that’s where a major challenge appears: recruiting participants is not easy. This raises a simple but important question: what factors make some people willing to take part in medical research while others hesitate? What we wanted to find out Previous research has identified a range of factors associated with participation in medical research. However, researchers have given surprisingly little attention to the role of scientific literacy—that is, how people think about, understand, and engage with science. At the same time, we know that people’s beliefs about medical researchers—especially whether they trust them or believe in conspiracy theories about them—are likely to play a role. To explore how these factors relate to willingness to participat...