Ethical Science Communication in Practice
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.
KeywordsEthics principles for science communication Applied ethics L’Aquila earthquake Negative findings
- Cancer Society. (2012). Dairy foods and cancer risk.Google Scholar
- Harding, S. G. (1998). Is science multicultural?: Postcolonialisms, feminisms, and epistemologies. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
- Hicks, C. (2014). Give up dairy products to beat cancer. The Telegraph.Google Scholar
- Illingworth, S. (2017). Delivering effective science communication: Advice from a professional science communicator. Paper Presented at the Seminars in Cell & Developmental Biology.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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 https://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/migration/events/other/symposium/201902/documents/papers/5.UNHCR.pdf.
- 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