Is Science Communication Ethical? A Question of Justice

  • Fabien MedveckyEmail author
  • Joan Leach


So far this book has focused on the ethics of science communication practice, culminating in a set of proposed principles for the field. This chapter takes a different tack and looks at the ethics of the field of science communication as a whole; is there something specifically moral about science communication as a field. The chapter considers oft-repeated claims that there is an anti-science crisis and a science communication crisis and argues there is no such crisis. There maybe an epistemic crisis, or an expert-trust crisis, but these stretch far beyond science. The chapter then looks at the effect of presenting these crises as being specifically about science on other fields of knowledge and to the social imagining of what good knowledge is.


Science communication Epistemic justice Anti-science Crisis discipline 


  1. Burns, M., & Medvecky, F. (2018). The disengaged in science communication: How not to count audiences and publics. Public Understanding of Science, 27(2), 118–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Chan, K. M. A. (2008). Value and advocacy in conservation biology: Crisis discipline or discipline in crisis? Conservation Biology, 22(1), 1–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cox, R. (2007). Nature’s “crisis disciplines”: Does environmental communication have an ethical duty? Environmental Communication, 1(1), 5–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Funk, C., & Kenned, B. (2019). Public confidence in scientists has remained stable for decades. PEW Research Center. From
  5. Funk, C., Smith, G., & Masci, D. (2019). How many creationists are there in America? Scientific American. From
  6. Hagan, J., & Palloni, A. (2014). Sociological criminology and the mythology of Hispanic immigration and crime. Social Problems, 46(4), 617–632. Scholar
  7. Lafferty, K. D. (2009). The ecology of climate change and infectious diseases. Ecology, 90(4), 888–900. Scholar
  8. Medvecky, F. (2018). Fairness in knowing: Science communication and epistemic justice. Science and Engineering Ethics, 24(5), 1393–1408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Meine, C., Soule, M., & Noss, R. F. (2006). “A mission-driven discipline”: The growth of conservation biology. Conservation Biology, 20(3), 631–651. Scholar
  10. Morton, J. (2018). Brian Cox: Why anti-science is a threat to our democracy. NZ Herald. From
  11. Parker, K., Morin, R., & Menasce Horowitz, J. (2019). 2. Worries, priorities and potential problem-solvers: Looking to the future, public sees an America in decline on many fronts. PEW Research Center. From
  12. Sandbrook, C., Adams, W. M., Büscher, B., & Vira, B. (2013). Social research and biodiversity conservation. Conservation Biology, 27(6), 1487–1490. Scholar
  13. Schulman, J. (2019). The 2018 list of the worst in anti-science. The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. From
  14. Smol, J. P. (2018). A crisis in science literacy and communication: Does reluctance to engage the public make academic scientists complicit?. Ottawa, ON: Canadian Science Publishing.Google Scholar
  15. Spenkuch, J. L. (2013). Understanding the impact of immigration on crime. American Law and Economics Review, 16(1), 177–219. Scholar
  16. Stocklmayer, S., Gore, M., & Bryant, C. (2001). Science communication in theory and practice (Vol. 14). Dordrecht: Springer Science & Business Media.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

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

Personalised recommendations