An Ethics of Science Communication
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
An Ethics of Science Communication Joan Leach An Ethics of Science Communication Fabien Medvecky · Joan Leach An Ethics of Science Communication Fabien Medvecky Joan Leach University of Otago The Australian National University Dunedin, New Zealand Canberra, ACT, Australia ISBN 978-3-030-32115-4 ISBN 978-3-030-32116-1 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-32116-1 © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifcally the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microflms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specifc statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affliations. Cover illustration: © Harvey Loake This Palgrave Pivot imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland PREFACE Look to the manner in which people in the middle might argue the case. —Jonsen and Toulmin, The Abuse of Casuistry: A History of Moral Reasoning (Jonsen & Toulmin, 1988) In the outer suburbs of ethical circles, which is arguably where science communication lives, there has been a long-standing debate on how to make ethical decisions, choices and even sensible statements. It is useful for us to pause and take in the contours of this debate. Our guide for this layover might most usefully be the philosopher and historian, even polymath, Stephen Toulmin. Toulmin had an academic life that spanned continents and traditions, and he directly connects a long-standing phil- osophical tradition of ethics and reasoning with an equally long- standing tradition of communication, specifcally persuasive communication or rhetoric. In the mid-1970s, after writing a number of books on philos- ophy of science and informal logic, Toulmin served on the National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioural Research, established by the US Congress. During this time, he collaborated with Albert R. Jonsen to write The Abuse of Casuistry: A History of Moral Reasoning (1988). This book attempted to reject the two poles of moral reasoning: On one side are those who see some particular set (or ‘code’) of rules and principles as correct, not just now and for them but eternally and v vi PREFACE invariably. On the other side are those who reject as unwarranted all attempts binding on peoples at all times and in all cultures. (p.19) In short, Toulmin and Jonsen wanted a middle path through rigid moral rules which might prove inadequate to every possible case of moral rea- soning and a thoroughgoing casuistry that would insist that every case is so unique that no general moral reasoning is possible. What does this mean for science communication? Thus far, the feld seems to us be very much in the throes of the situation that Toulmin and Jonsen describe in the 1970s. On the one hand, calls for an ‘ethi- cal code’ for science communication have been commonplace for some time. Many in professional practice in science communication feel bound to existing codes—for example, the codes of practice for public relation practitioners and the code of ethics for journalists are popular stand-ins for science communicators. On the other hand, our academic literature is loaded with case study after case study of episodes of moral quandaries that have been handled for better or for worse and without much refer- ence to codes of ethics. Toulmin would tell us that we are in need of some pointers in moral reasoning in the feld—not a code and not the opportunity to study an infnite variety of case studies. He would admonish us to ‘look to the manner in which people in the middle might argue the case’. This is our attempt to inhabit the ‘middle’. Which bring us to the frst exercise in moral reasoning—who are these people ‘in the middle’ of ethical debates in science communication? For the most part, while scientists and communicators are seen to be the moral offenders, publics trying to make sense of both scientifc practice and actually trying to fnd meaning in science communication are ‘in the middle’. While this doesn’t mean we shouldn’t pay attention to the behaviour of scientists and communicators, it does mean that we do need to pay more attention to how that behaviour frames and even creates moral muddles for publics and audiences for science. This is more diffcult than just paying attention to the moral reason- ing of publics about science and communication. A big distraction is that ethics of science overshadow the ethics of science communication, and while they are sometimes inextricably interlinked, being clear about a sci- ence communication breach vs a scientifc breach is useful. PREFACE vii DON’T BE DISTRACTED BY THE ‘ETHICAL’ BREACHES OF SCIENTISTS SIMPLICITER Take, for example, the case of the so-called CRISP-R babies. In late 2018, He Jiankui announced the birth of twin girls with genomes that he and his team had edited. There has been vigorous debate and con- demnation of this as a breach of the ethics of science. A Nature com- mentator put it this way: By engineering mutations into human embryos, which were then used to produce babies, He leapt capriciously into an era in which science could rewrite the gene pool of future generations by altering the human germ line. He also fouted established norms for safety and human protections along the way. (Cyranoski, 2019) As more information emerges, however, it is also pretty clear that He Jiankui fouted established norms for science communication. These only appear, however, under more patient scrutiny. For example, He Jiankui chose to announce his scientifc work, not in the pages of an academic journal, but in a panel session at an international conference and as an ‘announcement’, not as a discussion of ‘interim fndings’. Media teams were summoned to take in the ‘announcement’, and though at that point no verifcation was possible that He Jiankui had done what he said he had done—alter the human genome—the story was promptly inter- national science news. This is not the frst time that ‘publishing by press release’ has been condemned in science communication circles. The most famous episode might be Pons and Fleishman’s press conference announcement that they had achieved cold fusion in 1989. A Google search now conveniently comes up with ‘Pons and Fleishman bad sci- ence’. While they did not achieve cold fusion in 1989, they also fagged the danger of making a grandiose public announcement as quality sci- ence communication. Without the press release, cold fusion would still not have happened. However, the press release raises questions of its own about how and when knowledge gets called knowledge and the eth- ics of its public announcement. The public announcement in the He Jiankui case is one of the many ‘case study of episodes of moral quandaries’, one where the ethics of sci- ence are messily intertwined with the ethics of science communication, viii PREFACE and such case studies are helpful. But in seeking Toulmin’s ‘middle’, we want more than case studies. We want case studies that acknowledge the uniqueness of individual contexts, and we want broader theoretical foun- dations that can meaningfully respond to a call for a code of ethics for science communication. If science communication is going to tackle its ethics questions in any depth, it will do so in this ‘middle’, by drawing on case studies, by exploring existing codes and norms and by appealing to ethical discourse more broadly. It is this ‘middle’ we strive for in these pages. Dunedin, New Zealand Fabien Medvecky Canberra, Australia Joan Leach BIBLIOGRAPHY Cyranoski, D. (2019). The CRISPR-baby scandal: what’s next for human gene-editing. Nature, 566, 440–442. Jonsen, A. R., & Toulmin, S. E. (1988). The abuse of casuistry: A history of moral reasoning. Berkeley: University of California Press. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Both Joan and Fabien wish to acknowledge the many interlocutors we’ve had as we thought about and then wrote this book. The pro- fessional associations in the part of the world where we live and work, the Australian Science Communicators (Joan is past President) and the Science Communicators’ Association of New Zealand (Fabien is past President) have sponsored conferences where we’ve tried out ideas with both academics and professional science communicators. This also extends to the international network of PCST and the Society for Risk Analysis. Thank you to all of our many colleagues who care about an ethics of science communication and have been generous with your com- ments and ideas. Thank you also to our editors at Palgrave and the anon- ymous reviewers who improved the book.