Science saturates popular culture, but how might we understand the roles played by popular culture in producing scientific knowledge? Based on fieldwork and interviews with cultural producers in the United Kingdom, this article examines how cultural producers co-produce scientific knowledge and media products. This article engages with the slippery boundaries between media and scientific practices, examining the nuances, parameters and dynamics that shape the co-production of media products and scientific knowledge from the perspective of cultural producers working across television, radio, podcasts and newspaper journalism (print and online newspapers), popular science books and social media. I discuss how their media practices were deeply entangled with and productive of scientific knowledge. From carrying out their own research and collaborating with scientists, to commissioning small and large-scale scientific research, cultural producers supported, directly influenced and funded scientific research, most strikingly illustrated by data from the television industry. This study destabilizes assumptions about where, when and by whom scientific knowledge is produced, making the production of scientific knowledge for, with and through media practices more legible.

Concerns about social justice are long standing across many fields. In this article, we outline key social justice concepts in relation to science communication, before examining the politics of science and science communication in more detail. We argue more focus is needed on how certain forms of politics and power travel through science and science communication in ways that have created, reinforced and/or ameliorated structural inequities. We argue that foregrounding social justice perspectives helps make explicit the power dynamics involved in creating and communicating knowledge. For us, this is a purposeful move that resists the urge to tidy away, 'naturalise' or otherwise hide politics and power. We invite readers to collectively interrogate our existing science communication theories and practices with a view to transforming them to be more just and meaningfully improve people's lives and ecosystems.

What is science communication for? We argue that science communication can be framed, reimagined and transformed in service of social justice, which is what the papers in this special issue examine. We understand the vocabulary of "social justice" to signal the centring of critical research and practice paradigms, an ethical commitment to righting wrongs, building equity for all human beings and the broader ideal of improving the world [Fraser, 2003; Sen, 2009; Young, 1990]. We argue that bringing critical social justice lenses to science communication can usefully interrogate, rethink and ultimately reshape our field. This special issue examines both critical perspectives on science communication and what equitable transformations might entail.

Understanding equitable practice is crucial for science education since science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields and STEM learning practices remain significantly marked by structural inequalities. In this paper, building on theories of discourse and situated meaning developed by Foucault, Gee, and Sedgewick, we explore how educators navigated discourses about social justice in informal science learning (ISL) across four UK sites. We draw on qualitative, multimodal data across 5 years of a research-practice partnership between a university, a zoo, a social enterprise working to support girls and nonbinary youth in STEM, a community digital arts center, and a science center. We identify three key discourses that shaped social justice practices across all four practice-partner sites: (1) "inclusion" for STEM, (2) "inclusion" for the institution, and (3) "inclusion" for minoritized youth. We discuss how educators (n = 17) enacted, negotiated, resisted, and reworked these discourses to create equitable practice. We argue that while the three key discourses shaped the possible meanings and practices of equitable ISL in different ways, educators used their agency and creativity to develop more expansive visions of social justice. We discuss how the affordances, pitfalls, and contradictions that emerged within and between the three discourses were strategically navigated and disrupted by educators to support the minoritized youth they worked with, as well as to protect and promote equity in ISL. This paper contributes to research on social justice in ISL by grounding sometimes abstract questions about power and discourse in ISL educators' everyday work.

This paper examines cultural engagement with science in Latin America based on probabilistic models derived from quantitative data gathered on public perceptions of science. We explore the influence of social stratification and contextual factors -gender, age, education, socioeconomic level, and interest in science, among others- on visiting science museums in Argentina, Brazil, Chile, El Salvador, Mexico, Panama, and Paraguay. The data suggest that museum attendance is subject to the same social determinants affecting other cultural practices. The position individuals occupy in society mediates their opportunities and subjective dispositions. Cultural participation in science is stratified by social inequalities, marginalizing the most unprotected social classes: citizens with lower levels of education and income, the elderly, women, and people living outside large cities and urban areas. This evidence challenges the management and communication of science museums: Inequalities question participatory democracy efforts and transform cultural engagement into a matter of equity and social justice.

Critical reflective practice is a foundation of socially just pedagogy. This paper focuses on the informal STEM (science, technology, engineering, and maths) learning sector, where there is an acute shortage of support for critical reflective practice despite long-standing, entrenched issues of inequity. We analyse how practitioners used a new reflective tool, the Equity Compass, co-developed by researchers and practitioners through a five-year partnership. We report on multimodal qualitative data (interviews, ethnographic observations, group discussions, partner site visits, and workshops) from 12 practitioners in four settings in the UK: a community zoo, regional science centre, digital arts centre and an initiative supporting girls and non-binary young people into STEM. We discuss how using the Equity Compass: (i) increased and deepened practitioners' knowledge and understanding of equity issues; (ii) supported personal and institutional critical reflection, helping practitioners move beyond 'gut instinct' to interrogate their own positionality, ask new questions, and critically evaluate the effectiveness of attempts at inclusive practice; and (iii) fostered more intentional equitable planning and practice, such as participatory approaches that shared authority with learners and introduced more inclusive forms of representation. We conclude by discussing the challenges, limitations, and implications for supporting critical reflective practice among educators.

Background: Veno-venous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VV-ECMO) is an invasive intervention for patients with respiratory failure associated with COVID-19. This meta-analysis aims to determine the incidence of neurovascular complications in COVID-19 patients requiring VV-ECMO. Methods: Systematic literature search of MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and Cochrane databases was performed to identify studies that reported neurovascular complications of adult COVID-19 patients on VV-ECMO for respiratory failure. Case series and reports were excluded. Studies with 95% or more of its patients on VV-ECMO were pooled for meta-analysis. Results: Eighteen studies (n=1968) were included for meta-analyses. In COVID-19 patients requiring VV-ECMO, the incidences of intracranial hemorrhage and ischemic stroke were 11% [95% CI, 8–15%] and 2% [95% CI, 1–3%], respectively. Intraparenchymal and subarachnoid hemorrhages accounted for 73% and 8% of all intracranial hemorrhages, respectively. The risk ratio of mortality in COVID-19 patients with neurovascular complications on VV-ECMO compared to patients without neurovascular complications was 2.24 [95% CI, 1.46–3.46]. Conclusions: COVID-19 patients requiring VV-ECMO have a higher incidence of intracranial hemorrhage compared to historical data in non-COVID-19 patients (11% vs. 8%), while the incidence of ischemic stroke is similar (2%) in both cohorts. COVID-19 patients with neurovascular complications on VV-ECMO are at an increased risk of death.

Abstract Background Complex polyps are well recognized amongst endoscopists, but its definition varies in the literature and from one endoscopist to another. Despite its clinical importance, the epidemiology of complex polyps is poorly understood. Aims To assess the epidemiology of complex polyps on a population level, and in FIT positive individuals. Methods The Southwest Ontario Colonoscopy cohort is a prospective database consisting of all adult patients undergoing colonoscopy at 21 hospitals in Southwest Ontario. Data is collected through a mandatory quality assurance form completed by the endoscopist after each procedure. All outpatient adult colonoscopies for any indication were included. Incomplete colonoscopies, repeat procedures, and poor preparation colonoscopies were excluded. A manual review of the colonoscopy report was completed in cases where the description of the complex polyps was missing. The primary outcomes were the prevalence of complex polyps in the cohort, and in FIT positive patients. Secondary outcomes include endoscopic description of the complex polyp, rates of attempted and complete resection, and identification of possible associations between patient and endoscopist factors with complex polyp detection and removal. A multivariate logistic regression model was generated to assess for factors associated with complex polyp detection. Results From February 2019 to December 2020, 43389 colonoscopies were included, of which 1459 were for FIT positive patients. 2294 patients had a complex polyp, with a prevalence of 5.3% [95% CI 0.051–0.055], while the prevalence was 17.1% [95% CI 0.152–0.191] in the FIT positive cohort. Compared to average-risk patients undergoing colonoscopy for colon cancer screening, the odds ratio (OR) of detecting a complex polyp in individuals with positive FIT was 4.12 [95% CI 3.42–4.98, p<0.0001]. Among complex polyps,1324 (57.7%) were described as large (>2cm) and 1290 (56%) described as sessile. Of 2294 patients with complex polyps,1992 (86.8%) [95% CI 0.855–0.882] underwent a removal attempt, with successful complete removal as determined by the endoscopist achieved in 1905 patients (95.6%) [95% CI 0.947–0.965]. Compared to gastroenterologists, general surgeons and internists were less likely to detect a complex polyp, OR 0.67 [95% CI 0.61–0.73, p <0.0001] and 0.36 [95% CI 0.20–0.67, p=0.0011] respectively. Trainee involvement was associated with higher rate of complex polyp detection, OR 1.20 [95% CI 1.07–1.35, p=0.0022]. Females were less likely to have a complex polyp compared to males, OR 0.71 [95% CI 0.65–0.77, p<0.0001]. Conclusions Complex polyps are more prevalent than previously reported in the literature, with a high prevalence among the FIT positive population compared to other indications of colonoscopy. Funding Agencies None

While there are many different frameworks seeking to identify what benefits young people might derive from participation in informal STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics) learning (ISL), this paper argues that the sector would benefit from an approach that foregrounds equity and social justice outcomes. We propose a new model for reflecting on equitable youth outcomes from ISL that identifies five key areas: (1) Grounded fun; (2) STEM capital; (3) STEM trajectories; (4) STEM identity work; and (5) Agency+ . The model is applied to empirical data (interviews, observations and youth portfolios) collected over one year in four UK-based ISL settings with 33 young people (aged 11–14), largely from communities that are traditionally under-represented in STEM. Analysis considers the extent to which participating youth experienced equitable outcomes, or not, in relation to the five areas. The paper concludes with a discussion of implications for ISL and how the model might support ongoing efforts to reimagine ISL as vehicle for social justice.

It is commonly assumed that the reason many young people do not participate in informal STEM education (ISE) is because they lack interest in STEM. This paper draws on survey (n = 1,624) and qualitative data (n = 36) with young people aged 11-14 to examine the ways in which science dispositions, demographic characteristics, 'consumption' of cultural practices and exclusion interact to produce unequal forms of STEM participation. Latent class analysis generated six groups within our quantitative dataset: three groups who infrequently participated in designed and community ISE practices (Underserved Tech Enthusiasts, Underserved Creatives and Underserved Scientists), one group who only participated in specific forms of ISE practices (Partly Served Generalists) and two groups who frequently participated across a broad range of ISE practices (Served Cultural Omnivores and Served STEMnivores). Participation in ISE did not necessarily reflect young people's STEM interests; many minoritised young people reported being interested in STEM, yet rarely took part in designed and community ISE, while others from more socially advantaged backgrounds regularly participated regardless of their STEM interest. We conclude that ISE settings are excluding and failing to serve young people from minoritised backgrounds and there is a need to support these young people better.

What can we say about equity, diversity and inclusion in science communication research over the past 20 years? This is a thorny question because of course we want to be constructive, to recognise change and to respect those whose hard-won research on equity issues has meant so much to many of us. At the same time, it is impossible — given what we know through our research — not to take a critical stance. We critique the status quo of science communication research from a social justice perspective and reflect on how we might change, perhaps bringing what has been marginal (and indeed the marginalised) into the core of science communication research, practice and policy.

In this commentary we are concerned with what mainstream science communication has neglected through cultural narrowness and ambient racism: other practitioners, missing audiences, unvalued knowledge, unrecognised practices. We explore examples from First Nations Peoples in the lands now known as Australia, from Griots in West Africa and from People's Science Movements in India to help us reimagine science communication. To develop meaningfully inclusive approaches to science communication, we argue there is an urgent need for the ‘mainstream’ to recognise, value and learn from science communication practices that are all too often seen as at ‘the margins’ of this field.

Science museums and science centres are far from welcoming places for many people. Built quite literally during violent colonial expansion and the trans-Atlantic slave trade their funding, collections and the very fabric of their buildings are enmeshed in socio-political histories steeped in racism and its intersections with sexism, ableism, homophobia and class discrimination. In European science centers and museums these traumatic legacies of Empire often sit alongside celebrations of people, ideas and practices we find abhorrent today, such as the 'science' of eugenics. While such theories are widely denounced, they live on in science museums, in their statues of dead white men, the names of rooms, collections and buildings. In this chapter we explore how trying to address and redress these legacies in contemporary museum and science centre practices is a battle. The authors will discuss their work and experiences to discuss the opportunities and challenges of working to transform science museums and centers from decolonial, anti-racist and social justice perspectives.

Background Identity provides a useful conceptual lens for understanding educational inequalities in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM). In this paper, we examine how paying attention to physical and digital ‘materiality’ enriches our understanding of identity work, by going beyond the spoken, written and embodied dimensions of identity performances that currently dominate the area of STEM identity scholarship. We draw on a multimodal ethnographic study with 36 young people aged 11–14 carried out over the course of one year at four UK-based informal STEM learning settings. Data collection included a series of interviews, observations and youth-created portfolios focused on STEM experiences. Illustrative case studies of two young men who took part in a community-based digital arts centre are discussed in detail through the theoretical lenses of Judith Butler’s identity performativity and Karen Barad’s intra-action . Results We argue that physical and digital materiality mattered for the performances of ‘tech identity’ in that (i) the focus on the material changed our understanding of tech identity performances; (ii) digital spaces supported identity performances alongside, with and beyond physical bodies, and drew attention to new forms of identity recognition; (iii) identity performances across spaces were unpredictable and contained by the limits of material possibilities; and (iv) particular identity performances associated with technology were aligned with dominant enactments of masculinity and might thus be less accessible to some young people. Conclusion We conclude the paper by suggesting that accounting for materiality in STEM identity research not only guides researchers in going beyond what participants say and are observed doing (and thus engendering richer insights), but also offers more equitable ways of enacting research. Further, we argue that more needs to be done to support the translation of identity resources across spaces, such as between experiences within informal and online spaces, on the one hand, and formal education, on the other.

Science education has a seemingly intractable gender problem and remains largely the reserve of White, middle-class men and boys, especially in the physical sciences. In this paper, taking an intersectional approach to Butler's idea of identity as performance, we explore the affordances and limitations of a specific science learning space (a science museum) for girls. We discuss four types of performance, one based on 'good' behaviour, one combining masculinity and 'race'/ethnicity, one of silence and one based on being 'cool'. We focus on the experiences of 25 girls aged 12-13, from a mixture of ethnic backgrounds, from two inner-city, state-run, co-educational London schools, in the UK. We argue that the museum space put girls in a difficult position for both learning science and enacting the identities they were invested in. We conclude by reflecting on the implications for science learning spaces that disrupt rather than reproduce social inequalities.

Supporting more equitable participation in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) remains a key, persistent educational challenge. This paper employs a sociological Bourdieusian lens to explore how equitable youth outcomes might be supported through informal science learning (ISL). Drawing on multimodal, ethnographic data from four case study youth aged 11-14 from two ISL programs, we identify four areas of practice that were enacted to a greater or lesser extent in the programs in support of equitable youth outcomes. We identify how the equitable potential of these practices was realized through a disruption of dominant power relations. It is argued that ISL should focus on changing the field, rather than young people. Affordances and limitations of the Bourdieusian lens are discussed.