Show Me the Money

  • Fabien MedveckyEmail author
  • Joan Leach


Science communication takes resources. It costs money, time and effort to communicate. This chapter looks at the costs of communicating and what this means for science communication. Specifically, the effects of funding for science communication are considered, with an eye to how these effects communicators’ independence. A parallel with editorial independence is drawn before we consider the rise of native content as a form of science communication. The chapter closes with a discussion on the ethical implications of the funder-practitioner relationship for the often-stated science communication aspiration of truth and honesty.


Economics of communication Funding Editorial independence Native content 


  1. Bauer, M. W., & Bucchi, M. (2008). Journalism, science and society: Science communication between news and public relations. New York and London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  2. Bloomfield, B. P., & Best, A. (1992). Management consultants: systems development, power and the translation of problems. The Sociological Review, 40(3), 533–560. Scholar
  3. Brown, R., & Carasso, H. (2013). Everything for sale? The marketisation of UK higher education. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  4. CSIRO. (n.d.). Snapshot.
  5. Deuze, M. (2005). What is journalism?Professional identity and ideology of journalists reconsidered. Journalism, 6(4), 442–464. Scholar
  6. DIISRTE. (2009). Inspiring Australia: A national strategy for engagement with the sciences. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia.Google Scholar
  7. Hanitzsch, T., Hanusch, F., Mellado, C., Anikina, M., Berganza, R., Cangoz, I., … Kee Wang Yuen, E. (2011). Mapping journalism cultures across nations. Journalism Studies, 12(3), 273–293. Scholar
  8. Hanretty, C. (2010). Explaining the De Facto independence of Public Broadcasters. British Journal of Political Science, 40(1), 75–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hanretty, C. (2014). Media outlets and their moguls: Why concentrated individual or family ownership is bad for editorial independence. European Journal of Communication, 29(3), 335–350. Scholar
  10. Joel, M. (2013). We need a better definition of “native advertising”. HBR Blog Network.Google Scholar
  11. Kitcher, P. (2003). Science, truth, and democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  12. MBIE. (2014). A nation of curious minds: A national strategic plan for science in society. Wellington: New Zealand Government.Google Scholar
  13. Mulligan, J., & Barber, P. (2001). The client-consultant relationship. Management Consultancy: A Handbook for Best Practice (2nd ed, pp. 83–102). London: Kogan Page.Google Scholar
  14. Nelson, R. R. (2004). The market economy, and the scientific commons. Research Policy, 33(3), 455–471. Scholar
  15. Place, K. R. (2010). A qualitative examination of public relations practitioner ethical decision making and the deontological theory of ethical issues management. Journal of Mass Media Ethics, 25(3), 226–245. Scholar
  16. Polderman, A. (2008). Integrity in science communication. European Science Editing, 34(3), 62.Google Scholar
  17. Pozzebon, M., & Pinsonneault, A. (2012). The dynamics of client–consultant relationships: Exploring the interplay of power and knowledge. Journal of Information Technology, 27(1), 35–56. Scholar
  18. Psillos, S. (2005). Scientific realism: How science tracks truth. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  19. Slaughter, S., Slaughter, S. A., & Rhoades, G. (2004). Academic capitalism and the new economy: Markets, state, and higher education. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Treise, D., & Weigold, M. F. (2002). Advancing science communication: A survey of science communicators. Science Communication, 23(3), 310–322. Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

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

Personalised recommendations