Abstract
In this paper, I will discuss the responsibilities that scientists have for ensuring their work is interpreted correctly. I will argue that there are three good reasons for scientists to work to ensure the appropriate communication of their findings. First, I will argue that scientists have a general obligation to ensure scientific research is communicated properly based on the vulnerability of others to the misrepresentation of their work. Second, I will argue that scientists have a special obligation to do so because of the power we as a society invest in them as specialists and professionals. Finally, I will argue that scientists ought to ensure their work is interpreted correctly based on prudential, self-interested considerations. I will conclude by offering suggestions regarding policy considerations.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Thank you to Reviewer #1 for this objection.
Thanks to Adam Henschke for raising this point in conversation.
References
American Association for the Advancement of Science. AAAS R&D Funding Update. 20 March 2009. http://www.aaas.org/spp/rd/FY2009update.pdf (accessed June 8, 2010)
Ball P (2006) Damning all nanomaterials would be damned silly. Nature News (16 October. Website: http://www.nature.com/news/2006/061016/full/news061016-6.html, Accessed: 2 September, 2010)
Bauer W, Petkova K, Boyadjieva P (2000) Public knowledge of and attitudes to science: alternative measures that may end the “science war”. Sci Technol Human Values 25(1):30–51
Dawkins R (2008) The God delusion. Mariner Books
Fine C (2008) Will working mothers’ brains explode? The popular new genre of neurosexism. Neuroethics 1:69–72
Goodin RE (1985a) Protecting the vulnerable: a re-analysis of our social responsibilities. University of Chicago Press, Chicago
Goodin RE (1985b) Vulnerabilities and responsibilities: an ethical defense of the welfare state. Am Polit Sci Rev 79(3):775–787
Hamilton C (2007) Scorcher: the dirty politics of climate change. Black Inc. Agenda, Australia
Harris S (2005) The end of faith: religion, terror and the future of reason. W.W. Norton, New York
Kitcher P (2001) Science, truth and democracy. Oxford University Press, New York
Paull J, Lyons K (2008) Nanotechnology: the next challenge for organics. J Org Syst 3(1):3–22
Miller S, Selgelid MJ (2008) Ethical and philosophical consideration of the dual-use dilemma in the biological sciences. Springer, Dordecht
Resnik DB, Shamoo AE (2005) Bioterrorism and the responsible conduct of biomedical research. Drug Dev Res 63:121–133
Revkin AC (2009) Hacked e-mail data prompts calls for changes in climate research. New York Times, 28 November: A8
Selgelid MJ (2002) Societal decision making and the new eugenics. Bad Neuenahr-Ahrweiler, Germany
Stringer D (2009) Hackers leak e-mails, stoke climate debate. Associated Press, 21 November
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Evans, N.G. Speak No Evil: Scientists, Responsibility, and the Public Understanding of Science. Nanoethics 4, 215–220 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11569-010-0101-z
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11569-010-0101-z