Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Introduction: What’s so Good About Science Communication?

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
An Ethics of Science Communication

  • 951 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter introduces the relationship between valuing knowledge and valuing science communication as a way to open the discussion on the role of ethics in science communication. The main ideas and concepts that are discussed in the book are presented, from core ethical issues in science communication to a brief overview of existing ethical principles relevant for science communication. An overview of the structure of the book is also provided.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
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.

    Like Davis and Horst, we exclude both science fiction and science education. Note that we replaced the term ‘non-scientists’ with ‘non-experts’ because scientists in one field will still be non-expert audience to science in an other field.

  2. 2.

    :CueCat was a cat-shaped hand-held barcode scanner that allowed users to open a link on the web by scanning a barcode found in a printed article or catalogue. PC World magazine names it one of ‘The 25 Worst Tech Products of All Time’.

  3. 3.

    There have also been some suggestions for codes and principles for science communication though not clearly articulated as ethical principles, and there is significant variability in the scope of their applicability (who they apply to and in which context). We’ll look return to these briefly in Chapter 9.

Bibliography

  • Annan, K. (1997). If Information and knowledge are central to democracy, they are conditions for development. Paper presented at the Address given to the World Bank Conference on Global Knowledge, Toronto, ON, Canada. http://www.un.org/press/en/1997/19970623.sgsm6268.html.

  • Bubela, T., Nisbet, M. C., Borchelt, R., Brunger, F., Critchley, C., Einsiedel, E., … Hyde-Lay, R. (2009). Science communication reconsidered. Nature Biotechnology, 27(6), 514.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burns, M., & Medvecky, F. (2018). The disengaged in science communication: How not to count audiences and publics. Public Understanding of Science, 27(2), 118–130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cox, R. (2007). Nature’s “crisis disciplines”: Does environmental communication have an ethical duty? Environmental Communication, 1(1), 5–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davies, S. R., & Horst, M. (2016). Science communication: Culture, identity and citizenship. Wiesbaden: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fredrickson, D. S. (1991). Asilomar and recombinant DNA: The end of the beginning. In K. E. Hanna (Ed.), Biomedical politics (258–298). Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grady, D., & Pollack, A. (2014). Finding risks, not answers, in gene tests. The New York Times, p. 22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hofmann, B. (2016). Incidental findings of uncertain significance: To know or not to know—That is not the question. BMC Medical Ethics, 17(1), 13. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-016-0096-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Journalists, S. o. P. (2014). Society of professional journalists: Code of ethics. Society of Professional Journalists.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, G., & Sandøe, P. (2012). Going public: Good scientific conduct. Science and Engineering Ethics, 18(2), 173–197. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-010-9247-x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • NCA. (2017). Credo for ethical communication. National Communication Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nisbet, M. C. (2009). Framing science: A new paradigm in public engagement. In L. Kahlor & P. Stout (Eds.), Communicating science (pp. 54–81). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ravetz, J. R. (1987). Usable knowledge, usable ignorance: Incomplete science with policy implications. Science Communication, 9(1), 87–116. https://doi.org/10.1177/107554708700900104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stocklmayer, S. M. (2001). Science communication in theory and practice (Vol. 14). Dordrecht: Springer Science & Business Media.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sugiman, T. (2014). Lessons learned from the 2011 debacle of the Fukushima nuclear power plant. Public Understanding of Science, 23(3), 254–267. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662513494973.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trench, B., & Bucchi, M. (2010). Science communication, an emerging discipline. Journal of Science Communication, 9(3), C03.

    Article  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). Introduction: What’s so Good About Science Communication?. In: An Ethics of Science Communication. Palgrave Pivot, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-32116-1_1

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation