A likely consequence of poor science communication is:

Question

BlackTom AI · Accepted Answer

Poor science communication reduces the accuracy and speed of knowledge transfer between researchers, policymakers, and the public, which inhibits effective use of findings.

1) Relevant knowledge points and concepts
- Science communication: the clear, accurate transfer of scientific ideas to other scientists, decision-makers, and the public. 
- Outcomes of poor communication: misunderstanding, misinterpretation, reduced uptake of results, wasted resources, and slowed collaborative progress. 
- Distinguish between direct vs. indirect consequences and between likely vs. idealized outcomes.

2) Step-by-step reasoning
- If scientific findings are communicated poorly, other researchers may misapply methods or results, slowing replication, follow-up studies, and cumulative advancement. 
- Policymakers and practitioners who rely on scientific guidance may delay implementing evidence-based interventions because of unclear or conflicting messages, creating bottlenecks in real-world application. 
- Public misunderstanding can increase controversy and reduce participation in research initiatives, further slowing progress.

3) Calculations / intermediate steps
- No numerical calculations are needed; reasoning relies on causal links: poor communication → misunderstanding/misuse → reduced uptake/replication → slower progress.

4) Why the correct answer is correct
- Option a, "Slower scientific progress," follows directly from the causal chain above: when knowledge isn’t clearly transmitted, the iterative process of science (replication, critique, extension, application) is hindered, making slower progress the most likely broad consequence.

5) Why the other options are incorrect
- b ("Improved scientific literacy as people look up correct information"): This assumes a consistent, corrective response from the public; in practice, misinformation often persists and many do not seek or find accurate sources, so this is unlikely to be the typical consequence. 
- c ("Government intervention to clarify scientific miscommunication"): Governments may sometimes intervene, but this is not a universal or immediate outcome and depends on political will and context; it’s not the most likely general consequence. 
- d ("Increased public trust in science and scientists"): Poor communication tends to erode trust, not increase it; thus this option is the opposite of the expected effect.

6) Conclusion
- Therefore the best answer is a. Slower scientific progress., which matches the provided correct answer.

A likely consequence of poor science communication is:单项选择题

类似问题

Scientific information is commonly misunderstood by the general public because:

Why are infographics particularly useful in communicating science to non-scientists?Choose the answer that best answers the above question.

Why is it difficult to communicate effectively with 'the general public'? (Choose all that apply).

Ex-journalist and science communicator Jo Filshie Brown advises science communicators to use a PHD approach. What do these letters stand for?

Which of the following trees corresponds to a potential parse of the ambiguous sentence below, with correct syntactic categories? Some diagnostics are provided.

Which of the following sentences contain two non-finite verbs? Select all that apply.

更多留学生实用工具

智能学习助手

风格化写作助手

论文查重助手

文献引用助手

课堂转译助手

课堂笔记助手

Quiz搜索助手

学校历年真题

智能刷题助手

智能匹配练习

希望你的学习变得更简单