Ethics of Communicating Science

Introduction
Communicators of science have no formalized system of ethics to help them in the field because fundamentally, the work exists only in relation to other fields.

[9]

Communicating science as a practice itself is indistinct because it is an interactive relationship between scientists, journalists, and the public. Therefore, it is helpful to look to the norms of science and to the norms of journalism to begin reflecting upon what a unique code of ethics for communicators of science might look like.

Journalistic Ethics
The following journalistic code of ethics allows for a sense of the foundations of a unique code of ethics for communicators of science.
 *  Truthfulness and Accuracy in Reporting:  The principal that journalists should seek to be honest and fair, courageous in gathering, reporting and interpreting information.[15]
 *  Harm Limitation Principal:  Journalist should treat sources, subjects, colleagues, and the public with respect.[15]
 *  Principal of Independence:  This principal states that "the primary obligation of ethical journalism is to serve the public."[15]
 *  Accountability and Transparency:  This principal states that journalists need to be willing to take responsibility for their work and to explain their decisions to the public.[15]

Ethics of Communicating Science
Professional journalism associations, individual news organizations, and journalists have a number of "codes of ethics,” which share the principals of truthfulness, accuracy, objectivity, impartiality, fairness, and public accountability.[15]

Science communication, given the subject matter, is again partially defined in a relationship with the scientists. A science communicator working for a power company and writing about how wind power is generated is not necessarily the scientist designing the technology. The science communicator is likely to be in a working relationship with the scientist.The scientists and their code of ethics further help to work out a code of ethics for science communicators and further define what it means to be a communicator of science.

"Arguably, the best-established norms of science are the Mertonian norms" listed below.[2][10]

Mertonian norms (CUDOs)

 * In 1942, a sociologist by the name of Robert K. Merton, in his book “A Note on Science and Technology in a Democratic Order,” identified the ethos of science by specifying the norms by which science operated.[2][10]  Communalism:  The idea that scientific information should exist as common property among the scientific community, implying that scientific progress requires open communication.[2][10]
 *  Universalism:  Any person regardless of race, nationality, culture, or gender can participate in the scientific process. This forms the basis for the scientific process as an objective, preestablished and impersonal one (the peer review process).[2][10]
 * Disinterestedness:  That the work of a scientist should be to benefit the scientific community and, thus, humanity and should not be for personal gain.[9] This implies that science should strive to limit the influence of bias as much as possible.[2]
 * Organized Skepticism:  This principal states that scientific results must be verifiable and reproducible (another reference to the peer review process).[10]

The Unique Challenges Scientists Face Regarding Communicating Science
The scientific code of ethics in a nutshell says that scientists should strive to "... accurately and honestly present scientific evidence, declare conflicts of interest, and prevent professional misconduct."[12] Some dilemmas scientists face regarding ethics and scientific communication include:

Problem selection
One kind of ethical challenge in regard to problem selection is deciding whether a scientific problem has value.[13] Types of valuation include epistemic value (related to knowledge) and non-epistemic value (related to the implementation of war or monetary profit).

Funding can also cause valuation concerns in problem selection. Competing interests can push institutions and scientists to move in a direction without regard for ethical principles.[13] Competing interests may include those of the consumer, governmental agencies, research sponsors, and shareholders (those who reap the benefits of corporate success).

National institutions include the Nation Institute of Health (NIH) and the Nation Science Foundation (NSF). Private companies tend to fund projects that will positively impact profits.[13]

Scientific problems can sometimes present difficult ethical and moral questions. For example, the scientists and engineers of the Manhattan Project faced deep ethical and moral questions when deciding whether to develop nuclear weapons.[13]

Publication and data sharing
A scientific communicator should be aware that the dissemination of knowledge can have good or bad implications for society, so called "duel-use knowledge."[6][13]

Communicators of science should be aware that it is possible to make mistakes that do great harm. For example, the mistakes in communication that occurred prior to the O-ring failure and resulting Space Shuttle Challenger disaster.[11] It was found that engineers involved in designing the Space Shuttle Challenger had failed to communicate to their non-scientific counterparts the potential for O-ring failure.[11]

Engaging Society
Engaging the public can carry consequences for a researcher. A scientist's reputation as an objective researcher may be threatened by becoming involved in policy-relevant research.[13]

Scientists involved in public policy can suffer backlash from industries and special interests and may even become concerned with personal safety or financial harm.[13]

As a scientist, engaging the public takes time and effort. Providing expert testimony in a court of law can require preparation and involve a substantial expenditure of time.[13]

Cultural Values
Studies suggest that the process of communicating science to the non-scientific public is a cross-cultural event.[1]

The notion of science as a process involving an accurate, detached, and objective view of nature is a Western ideal, but in other parts of the world spirituality and aesthetics are preferred to explain the world around us.[7] Western society views superstition as anti-intellectual, while elsewhere in the world spirituality is viewed as fact.

Such a variety of viewpoints influence media coverage of science and technology.[7] A communicator of science would do well to be sensitive to the pluralistic world in which we live, because to be culturally aware is to operate in an ethical and effective manner within the field.[1][7]

Economics
In some countries, including in France and India, it is common practice and even an economic necessity for journalists to accept gifts of meals, lodging, paid travel, and even cash favors from companies and sources they are writing about.[7] This practice is contrary to the Western perspective of journalistic ethics.

Politics
In many countries, even those as dissimilar as Sri Lanka and the U.S., environmental journalists can find themselves operating in opposition to national governments, local politicians or power, national and trans-national commercial interests.[7]

An unfriendly relationship between scientific communication and power and business seems to be a universal phenomenon, it is much less so in some countries such as Iceland, which has institutionalized the most aggressive sunshine laws possible.[3][5] Undoubtedly, freedom of the press is essential for good science journalism.[12]

Making Ethical Decisions in Communicating Science
Finally, making ethical decisions requires the consideration of ethical implications and situations and, sometimes, training.[7][8] A communicator of science may have to make an ethical decision. In making ethical decisions it is necessary to recognize and eliminate unethical options and select the best ethical alternative. Below are some decision-making guidelines, one of many decision-making models to consider when faced with an ethical problem.[8] Whistleblower protection laws exist in the United States. These are laws enacted to protect people from workplace retaliation should they report unethical or unsafe behavior.[14]
 * Define the ethical issue
 * Consider the parties involved
 * Gather all the relevant information
 * Formulate actions and consider alternatives
 * Make a decision and consider it
 * Act
 * Reflect on the outcome

Summary
The act of communicating science is a relationship, with scientists, journalists, and a diverse audience with different ways of dealing with similar situations.

There is a cultural side to science communication. There is a necessity to consider cultural differences, including how individuals feel about the distance between humans and nature.[1] A code of ethics for communicators of science would have to transcend ethical boundaries.[7]

Communication of science in its most narrow sense refers to scientists communicating to the non-scientific public(outreach) and between scientists (inreach), but there are also science writers and educators. Science communication can occur more broadly and implicitly in media.

The formalization of an ethical code for communicators of science would require an understanding that successful communication of science is the responsibility of all those involved.[4]

Resources
1. Aikenhead, G. S. (2001). Science Communication with the Public: A Cross-Cultural Event. In S. M. (eds), Science Communication in Theory and Practice (pp. 23-45). Printed in the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

2. Bray, D., & von Storch, H. (2017, November 8). The Normative Orientations of Climate Scientists. Retrieved Oct. 24, 2020, from Science and Engineering Ethics: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-014-9605-1

3. Cohen, N. (2010, Feb. 21). A Vision of Iceland as a Haven for Journalists. The New York Times, p. 3. Retrieved 1023 2020

4. Garrett, J. M., & Bird, S. J. (2000). Ethihcal Issues in Communicationg Science. Science and Engineering Ethics, 6(4), 435-442.

5. Hayes, A. (2020, Apr. 27). Sunshine Laws. Retrieved 10 23, 2020, from Investoopedia: https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/sunshinelaws.asp#:~:text=Sunshine%20laws%20are%20regulations%20requiring,participation%2C%20and%2For%20inspection.

6. Kuhlau, F., Hoglund, A. T., Eriksson, S., & Evers, K. (2013). The Ethics of Disseminating Dual-use Knowlege. Research Ethics, 9(1) 6-19. doi:10.1177/1747016113478517

7. Lewenstein, B. V. (Fall 1997). International Perspectives on Science Communication Ethics. Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad, 3(2), 171-79.

8. Making Choices: A Framework for Making Ethical Decisions. (n.d.). (B. University, Producer) Retrieved Oct. 24, 2020, from Science and Technology Studies: https://www.brown.edu/academics/science-and-technology-studies/framework-making-ethical-decisions

9. Medvecky, F. L. (2017). The Ethics of Science Communication. JCOM(E), 16(04).

10. Merton's Norms and the Scientific Ethos. (n.d.). Retrieved Oct. 23, 2020, from Berkeley Initiative for Transparency in the Social Sciences: bitss.org/mertons-norms-and-the-scientific-ethos

11. Mr. Feynman Goes to Washington. (n.d.). The Attic. Retrieved October 23, 2020

12. Pang Ling, C. (2007, March 31). A Code of Ethics for Scientists. The Lancet, 389(9567). doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(07)60507-8

13. Resnik, D. B. (2016, Jan 1). The Ethical Challenges of Socially Responsible Science. doi:10.1080/08989621.20141002608

14. Shimabukuro, J. O., & Whitaker, P. L. (2012, September 13). Whistleblower Protections Under Federal Law: An Overview. Retrieved Oct. 24, 2020, from Congressional Research Service: https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42727.pdf

15. SPJ Code of Ethics. (2014, September 6). Retrieved Oct. 24, 2020, from society for Professional Journalism: https://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp