Speak No Evil: Scientists, Responsibility, and the Public Understanding of Science


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, access via your institution.


  1. 1.

    Thank you to Reviewer #1 for this objection.

  2. 2.

    Thanks to Adam Henschke for raising this point in conversation.


  1. 1.

    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)

  2. 2.

    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)

  3. 3.

    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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Dawkins R (2008) The God delusion. Mariner Books

  5. 5.

    Fine C (2008) Will working mothers’ brains explode? The popular new genre of neurosexism. Neuroethics 1:69–72

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Goodin RE (1985a) Protecting the vulnerable: a re-analysis of our social responsibilities. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Goodin RE (1985b) Vulnerabilities and responsibilities: an ethical defense of the welfare state. Am Polit Sci Rev 79(3):775–787

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Hamilton C (2007) Scorcher: the dirty politics of climate change. Black Inc. Agenda, Australia

    Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Harris S (2005) The end of faith: religion, terror and the future of reason. W.W. Norton, New York

    Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Kitcher P (2001) Science, truth and democracy. Oxford University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Paull J, Lyons K (2008) Nanotechnology: the next challenge for organics. J Org Syst 3(1):3–22

    Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Miller S, Selgelid MJ (2008) Ethical and philosophical consideration of the dual-use dilemma in the biological sciences. Springer, Dordecht

    Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Resnik DB, Shamoo AE (2005) Bioterrorism and the responsible conduct of biomedical research. Drug Dev Res 63:121–133

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Revkin AC (2009) Hacked e-mail data prompts calls for changes in climate research. New York Times, 28 November: A8

  15. 15.

    Selgelid MJ (2002) Societal decision making and the new eugenics. Bad Neuenahr-Ahrweiler, Germany

  16. 16.

    Stringer D (2009) Hackers leak e-mails, stoke climate debate. Associated Press, 21 November

Download references

Author information



Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nicholas G. Evans.

Rights and permissions

Reprints 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

Download citation


  • Responsibility
  • Applied ethics
  • Ethics of science
  • Ethics of technology
  • Communication
  • Vulnerability
  • Science communication