• Fabien MedveckyEmail author
  • Joan Leach


Much of science communication has focused on doing effective communication. In closing the book, we bring it back to the idea that being effective without being moral is not, in itself, good. We acknowledge that doing morally good (as well as effective) science communication, whether as a practice or as research, takes resources, effort and know-how. This chapter aims to bring all of the previous chapters in a summary and provide some tools to help practitioners and researchers, teachers and students of science communication think about the ethics of what they do as they learn to do so effectively.


Ethics of science communication Ethics of knowledge Conclusion 


  1. Besley, J. C., & McComas, K. A. (2013). Fairness, public engagement, and risk communication. Effective risk communication (pp. 134–149). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  2. Haidt, J. (2001). The emotional dog and its rational tail: A social intuitionist approach to moral judgment. Psychological Review, 108(4), 814–834. Scholar
  3. Reynolds, S. J., Leavitt, K., & DeCelles, K. A. (2010). Automatic ethics: The effects of implicit assumptions and contextual cues on moral behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(4), 752–760. Scholar
  4. Shmaefsky, B. (2010). Syphilis: Deadly diseases and epidemics. New York: Chelsea House.Google Scholar
  5. Spitzer, S. (2017). Five principles of holistic science communication. From

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

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

Personalised recommendations