Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Ethical Science Communication in Practice

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
An Ethics of Science Communication

  • 822 Accesses

Abstract

Principlism might seem a lofty ideal, so this chapter takes an applied turn to ground the abstract discussion in real-world settings. This is done through three case studies of how the principles proposed in the previous chapters can be applied; the proposes principles being Utility (of the information communicated), Accuracy, Kairos and Generosity. The first case considered is a case the book opened with involving genetic testing. The second case we consider is the well-known L’Aquila earthquake case, and lastly, we consider the bias that arises because unsuccessful science communication fails to get mentioned. Each of these cases shows not only what is problematic, but also sheds light on how the principles can be used to be more ethical.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 69.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    For example, claiming that ‘the scientific community continues to assure me that, to the contrary, it’s a favourable situation because of the continuous discharge of energy’.

Bibliography

  • Alexander, D. E. (2014). Communicating earthquake risk to the public: The trial of the “L’Aquila Seven”. Natural Hazards, 72(2), 1159–1173. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-014-1062-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benessia, A., & De Marchi, B. (2017). When the earth shakes … and science with it. The management and communication of uncertainty in the L’Aquila earthquake. Futures, 91, 35–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cancer Society. (2012). Dairy foods and cancer risk.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dawson, E. (2019). Equity, exclusion and everyday science learning: The experiences of minoritised groups. London: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Gillon, R. (1994). Medical ethics: Four principles plus attention to scope. British Medical Journal, 309(6948), 184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hall, S. S. (2011). Scientists on trial: At fault? Nature News, 477(7364), 264–269.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harding, S. G. (1998). Is science multicultural?: Postcolonialisms, feminisms, and epistemologies. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hicks, C. (2014). Give up dairy products to beat cancer. The Telegraph.

    Google Scholar 

  • Illingworth, S. (2017). Delivering effective science communication: Advice from a professional science communicator. Paper Presented at the Seminars in Cell & Developmental Biology.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jensen, E. (2014). The problems with science communication evaluation. Journal of Science Communication, 13(1), C04.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Macklin, R. (2003). Applying the four principles. Journal of Medical Ethics, 29(5), 275–280. https://doi.org/10.1136/jme.29.5.275.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marincioni, F., Appiotti, F., Ferretti, M., Antinori, C., Melonaro, P., Pusceddu, A., & Oreficini-Rosi, R. (2012). Perception and communication of seismic risk: The 6 April 2009 L’Aquila earthquake case study. Earthquake Spectra, 28(1), 159–183.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sellnow, D. D., Iverson, J., & Sellnow, T. L. (2017). The evolution of the operational earthquake forecasting community of practice: The L’Aquila communication crisis as a triggering event for organizational renewal. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 45(2), 121–139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. (2019). Contribution to the expert symposium on international migration and development (UN/POP/MIG-1ES/2019/5). New York: United Nations. From https://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/migration/events/other/symposium/201902/documents/papers/5.UNHCR.pdf.

  • Wynne, B. (1994). May the sheep safely graze? A reflexive view of the expert-lay knowledge divide. In B. Szerszynski, S. Lash, & B. Wynne (Eds.), Risk environment and modernity: Towards an new ecology (pp. 44–83). London, Thousand Oaks, and New Delhi: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand

    Fabien Medvecky

  2. The Australian National University, Canberra, ACT, Australia

    Joan Leach

Authors
  1. Fabien Medvecky
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Joan Leach
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Fabien Medvecky .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Medvecky, F., Leach, J. (2019). Ethical Science Communication in Practice. In: An Ethics of Science Communication. Palgrave Pivot, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-32116-1_10

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation