Speak No Evil: Scientists, Responsibility, and the Public Understanding of Science (original) (raw)
Related papers
The ethics of science communication
Journal of Science Communication
What is it that really makes communicating science a good, moral thing to do? And are there limits to the potential ‘goodness’ of science communication? In this article, we argue it is time we consider what an ethics of science communication might look like. Not only will this help us figure out what doing the right, moral thing might be. It also invites us to think through one of the most perplexing, challenging and pressing question for this still emerging field: what are the core unifying features of science communication?
Bridging the Gap on Both Sides: Issues of an Ethical Communication of Science
Iowa State University Summer Symposium on Science Communication
In the context of a specific understanding of ethics and communication, we discuss what seems central today for the interplay of science and society, the question of expertise. That notion is briefly presented and we then underscore some major issues that the prevalence of expertise in our society raise in the practice of hybrid forums, among which come first conditions of mutual understandability between citizens and experts.
and notably in a Cold War context -public communication and literacy in science became government policy issues. More recently, and increasingly rapidly, this explicit concern with public communication of science in policy, educational and scientific circles has spread through other social sectors and around the world. Public communication of science is a recognised policy issue and an object of study and analysis across the globe. Scientific discoveries and research findings are constituted in the act of communication, that is, in publication for the attention and critical scrutiny of peers. Professional communication takes place by long-established means through academic journals, the best-known of which have continuous histories of over 150 years. The sociological and institutional characteristics of communication of science within and between scientific communities are distinct from those of public communication of science. This professional communication is sometimes referred to as 'scientific communication' to distinguish it from 'science communication', in which attention is given to the challenges of communicating often highly specialised and complex information with non-specialist members of the public. Based on this distinction there have grown sets of professional practices, of cultural institutions, of educational programmes and of research activity labelled as science communication, or some nearequivalent. Public communication of science has often been conceptualised in terms of gaps and bridges between scientists and their institutions, on the one hand, and the rest of society, on the other.
The Routledge Handbook Of Scientific Communication
- Hanganu-Bresch, Cristina; Zerbe, Michael J.; Cutrufello, Gabriel; Maci, Stefania Maria (eds). The Routledge Handbook of Scientific Communication. London, Routledge. ISBN 9781003043782, 2021
Given current science-related crises facing the world such as climate change, the targeting and manipulation of DNA, GMO foods, and vaccine denial, the way in which we communicate science matters is vital for current and future generations of scientists and publics. The Routledge Handbook of Scientific Communication scrutinizes what we value, prioritize, and grapple with in science as highlighted by the rhetorical choices of scientists, students, educators, science gatekeepers, and lay commentators. Drawing on contributions from leading thinkers in the field, this volume explores some of the most pressing questions in this growing field of study, including: How is scientific communication taught to a variety of audiences? Offering a critical look at the complex relationships that characterize current scientific communication practices in academia, industry, government, and elsewhere, this Handbook will be essential reading for students, scholars, and professionals involved in the study, practice, and teaching of scientific, medical, and technical communication.
Why Public Dissemination of Science Matters: A Manifesto
Journal of Neuroscience, 2013
Communicating science to the public takes time away from busy research careers. So why would you do it? I here offer six reasons. First, we owe that understanding to the people who fund our experiments, the taxpaying public. Second, we can leverage our skills as scientists to inspire critical thinking in public and political dialog. Third, researchers are optimally positioned to stem the flow of scientific misinformation in the media. Fourth, we can explain the ways and the means by which science can (and cannot) improve law and social policy. Fifth, it is incumbent upon us to explain what science is and is not: while it is a way of thinking that upgrades our intuitions, it also comes with a deep understanding of (and tolerance for) uncertainty. Finally, we find ourselves in the pleasurable position of being able to share the raw beauty of the world around us-and in the case of neuroscience, the world inside us. I suggest that scientists are optimally stationed to increase their presence in the public sphere: our training positions us to synthesize large bodies of data, weigh the evidence, and communicate with nuance, sincerity and exactitude.
Social Issues and Policy Review, 2018
Scientists must share their work with the public in order to promote science-based public discourse and policies. These acts of science communication are often evaluated in terms of their ability to inform (i.e., introduce accurate and accessible information) and engage (i.e., capture interest and maintain attention). We focus on a third basis by which science communication might be judged, influence. Science communicators exert influence when they shape public opinions in ways that affect their judgments and decisions, alter social and political discourse and debate, and guide social policy. We describe how the influence of any given science communication should be evaluated independent of its ability to inform or engage. We give particular attention in our analysis to the often unintended influences that well-meaning science communicators can have. We begin by considering ways that communications from climate scientists might reduce support for climate regulation and communications from health scientists might undermine public health. We then develop two "case studies," drawn from social psychology. These show how popular media descriptions of the science of racial bias and disadvantage might in some cases exacerbate racial discrimination and reduce concern for the disadvantaged. We close with an agenda for a more vigorous science of science communication; one that engages in two complementary pursuits. Critical studies identify the dominant and consequential effects that popular science communicators are having on public perceptions. Strategic studies advance and empirically