Ethical Science Communication in Practice

  • Fabien MedveckyEmail author
  • Joan Leach


Principlism might seem a lofty ideal, so this chapter takes an applied turn to ground the abstract discussion in real-world settings. This is done through three case studies of how the principles proposed in the previous chapters can be applied; the proposes principles being Utility (of the information communicated), Accuracy, Kairos and Generosity. The first case considered is a case the book opened with involving genetic testing. The second case we consider is the well-known L’Aquila earthquake case, and lastly, we consider the bias that arises because unsuccessful science communication fails to get mentioned. Each of these cases shows not only what is problematic, but also sheds light on how the principles can be used to be more ethical.


Ethics principles for science communication Applied ethics L’Aquila earthquake Negative findings 


  1. Alexander, D. E. (2014). Communicating earthquake risk to the public: The trial of the “L’Aquila Seven”. Natural Hazards, 72(2), 1159–1173. Scholar
  2. Benessia, A., & De Marchi, B. (2017). When the earth shakes … and science with it. The management and communication of uncertainty in the L’Aquila earthquake. Futures, 91, 35–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cancer Society. (2012). Dairy foods and cancer risk.Google Scholar
  4. Dawson, E. (2019). Equity, exclusion and everyday science learning: The experiences of minoritised groups. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Gillon, R. (1994). Medical ethics: Four principles plus attention to scope. British Medical Journal, 309(6948), 184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Hall, S. S. (2011). Scientists on trial: At fault? Nature News, 477(7364), 264–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Harding, S. G. (1998). Is science multicultural?: Postcolonialisms, feminisms, and epistemologies. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Hicks, C. (2014). Give up dairy products to beat cancer. The Telegraph.Google Scholar
  9. Illingworth, S. (2017). Delivering effective science communication: Advice from a professional science communicator. Paper Presented at the Seminars in Cell & Developmental Biology.Google Scholar
  10. Jensen, E. (2014). The problems with science communication evaluation. Journal of Science Communication, 13(1), C04.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Macklin, R. (2003). Applying the four principles. Journal of Medical Ethics, 29(5), 275–280. Scholar
  12. Marincioni, F., Appiotti, F., Ferretti, M., Antinori, C., Melonaro, P., Pusceddu, A., & Oreficini-Rosi, R. (2012). Perception and communication of seismic risk: The 6 April 2009 L’Aquila earthquake case study. Earthquake Spectra, 28(1), 159–183.Google Scholar
  13. Sellnow, D. D., Iverson, J., & Sellnow, T. L. (2017). The evolution of the operational earthquake forecasting community of practice: The L’Aquila communication crisis as a triggering event for organizational renewal. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 45(2), 121–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. (2019). Contribution to the expert symposium on international migration and development (UN/POP/MIG-1ES/2019/5). New York: United Nations. From
  15. Wynne, B. (1994). May the sheep safely graze? A reflexive view of the expert-lay knowledge divide. In B. Szerszynski, S. Lash, & B. Wynne (Eds.), Risk environment and modernity: Towards an new ecology (pp. 44–83). London, Thousand Oaks, and New Delhi: Sage.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of OtagoDunedinNew Zealand
  2. 2.The Australian National UniversityCanberraAustralia

Personalised recommendations