Key Ethics for Science Communication

"where does science communication’s draw its moral grounding from? Is science communication a child of science, a child of journalism, a child of communication, or is it time it enters adulthood when it comes to its ethics"

(Medvecky & Leach, 2017)

As the landscape of science communication and public engagement continues to develop and grow, it is especially important for professionals to ensure they stay up-to-date in their approach and adhere to ethical practice within this sector.

To start what do we actually mean by ethics? I am working from the Oxford English Dictionary (2019) definitions:

"Moral principles that govern a person's behaviour or the conducting of an activity."

"The moral correctness of specified conduct."

One of the biggest issues that affects professionals in science communication is that it "can’t neatly call on any ‘off-the shelf’ ethical guides" (Medvecky & Leach, 2017) the lack of one clear, definitive code of conduct for ethics and ethical practice means that guidance for ethics in this sphere are varied; with practitioners drawing from different ethics sources. From my career within the sector I have found that many individuals adhere to personal morals and institutional viewpoints to guide their ethics approach. Although this is an excellent starting point, I feel that more needs to be done to align all science communication and public engagement professionals on this subject.

By no means do I propose my key ideas for science communication and public engagement ethics outlined below covers every possible area and should be taken as scientific fact. The conclusions I have reached, have been developed from my own personal life experience, my moral compass, institutional values from my career and I am deeply aware this means I approach this with a predetermined set of ethics based upon my morals and values; leading this of course to be created with an element of biased. As any good academic should, I have also conducted a review of journals and research into pre existing materials. Though this approach in itself is a challenge as the literature to review specifically on science communication and public engagement ethics itself is sparse.

The process on how I developed these ethics is a topic for another blog post (we all love a good multi coloured post-it-note activity - I think its a sign of the sector) and this scoping activity is something which I found incredibly interesting to learn about myself as a science communication and public engagement professional, and it's an activity that others in this profession might also find of benefit.

However, thinking about the development of these ethics it is important to note these categories were created in a way (shaped), by the individual ethic points / approaches identified, which I have then termed under the broader headings seen here. Below I have unpicked some of the core ideologies behind this, and will leave the readers better judgement to interpret some of the other points (alas maybe this is the pitfall science communication ethics have fallen into already, the assumption that we all approach science communication and public engagement ethics with the same attitudes, values and ideologies).

Research Outputs:

Clearly and equitably communicating what the research is, how it was done and most importantly what it means.

1. Communicate all areas of academic research. Communication should not just focus on science, but all areas of research including social sciences, arts and humanities, engineering and medical to name a few... basically if you can research into it, a science communication professional should communicate it.

2. Open access approach. When talking about research this should be available via open access channels, alongside as much information that it is ethically possible to provide. The communication itself should also not be behind paywalls.

3. Clarity in processes and outputs. Ensure the research processes and outputs are communicated in a clear way; especially when being communicated to a non-specialist audience. Technical terminology should be kept to a minimum and only used when necessary.

4. Equitable distribution of information. Being alongside the ethical approach of open access, this also covers information being ethically distributed; being made available - and to an extent marketed - to those who need to access this most. Don't hide information from those who need it.

5. Consideration of societal impacts. All research will align to a topic which someone, somewhere cares deeply about or impacts upon them. It's important this is handled in a considerate and ethical manner, taking into consideration the impact this communication may have on the individual, group, society or organisation.

6. Abiding by legislation. Simple things such as adhering to contractual legislation for the research, and wider legal considerations such as GDPR, all communication must be legally abiding.

In this section, there were two key phrases that I created that shaped my meanings of this; "to be conscious on how to equitably distribute information" and "be conscientious of the societal impact of the information being communicated".

One complication, which I come across on a nearly daily basis, is the concern that researchers are seen as professionals and experts in science (meant in its broadest term) when this is simply not true; they've spent years of their lives specialising in specific areas. Although researchers are allowed to have opinions on other areas of science (most people these days have an opinion on single use plastics, despite no formal education on the subject). The concern is that a researchers opinion (which I reiterate they're allowed to have!) is then taken and communicated as the truth and the research output.

Defined as epistemic injustice, Medvecky, F (2017) summaries this as occurring "when there is a mismatch between the level of knowledge an individual possesses and the credibility the individual is afforded." As a science communicator, all communication must be equitable with its sourcing, and therefore this is an integral ethical standpoint. This is not to say that researchers can't have an informed opinion on subjects in the same sphere as their research, but as a science communicator it is ethically prudent to communicate clearly when this / is not the case. Having this clarity is vital, as trust with science is already strained as I've discussed in previous blog posts, science communication should therefore ensure it can be identifiable as an equitable source.

Scope of scicomm:

Communicating the impact to society; targeting the right audience in the right way.

1. Target the right audience. Ensure when communicating you choose the appropriate channel and method for the audience, and that it is the right audience you're communicating with.

2. Look at the bigger picture and societal impact. When communicating about research, to make it equitable for audiences ensure you cover the bigger picture; why this is of benefit to society.

3. Highlight the value of research and outputs. As with looking at societal impact, sometimes research does not always directly benefit society and has to go through "middle steps" of legislation, if this is the case ensure you communicate why this research is beneficial and communicate its journey through to benefitting an individual or group.

4. Highlight all areas of research and the benefits of interdisciplinarity. Sometimes within research there are multiple elements and skill sets which have gone into the research and outputs from various academic sectors; ensure when an interdisciplinary approach has been used, communicate all these areas and the benefits of these viewpoints.

5. Communicate in a balanced, independent and excellent way. Developed from science research culture and its journalistic roots, all science communication should be done from an independent stand point (when appropriate), be balanced or neutral in opinion and be conducted in a high quality way.

6. Ensure all communication is well informed. As fundamental good practice of all communication, those communicating should ensure they have access to all the information needed, and in research ensure they work with the researcher to shape the communication so it is well informed and correct.

Shaping the scope of what science communication consists of is a challenge which, in my opinion many of us who work in the sector face. When is it communication, when is it public engagement, when is it stakeholder engagement? It can be difficult to define. When shaping these ethics, I kept three core values in mind; "keep the big picture and common goal in mind", "I like to know as much information as possible" and that it should be "helping society".

As a science communication professional I have a fundamental issue; this "branding" states that I simply only communicate science. This is far from the truth. Some others working within this field have defined this further; "In the context of science communication, science is deemed to include “pure science” [...], mathematics, statistics, engineering, technology, medicine, and related fields." Burns T.W., O'Connor D.J. & Stocklmayer S.M. (2003). Although I do agree with this standpoint, I firmly believe that science communication now casts a much wider net.

"reframe science communication as something broader; perhaps ‘complex issues communications’ (with science as part of that complexity), or ‘knowledge communication’ (with science as one of the branches of knowledge)" Medvecky, F (2017).

In my opinion as a science communicator, I will communicate anything that is research, despite its academic discipline.

Casting the net wider than simply just science; we branch into the realms of interdisciplinarity. This is simply when two different areas of research come together, for example science and art. As the landscape for research changes and funding bodies are increasingly moving towards this interdisciplinary approach, as must science communication. Science Europe an organisation focused on promoting the collective interests of the Research Funding and Research Performing Organisations of Europe states in its road map that all those involved will support borderless science:

"actions aiming at ensuring that scientific excellence is the main factor shaping research collaboration patterns in Europe, thus reducing the impact of geographical, disciplinary, administrative or sectorial borders." (Science Europe, 2019)

This clearly shows how not only on a local scale, but European scale, that the importance of interdisciplinarity is. This scale is slowly being seen to be growing. The United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (2019) covers topics such as "Partnerships for the Goals"; although this does not intrinsically say this relates to the research sector; it is important to look at the wider landscape which research is taken place in, and this is significant that partnerships and working together is a priority focus for the United Nations and all those within it.

Working with others:

Collaborate in an ethical and mutually beneficial way with others, especially those outside of the academic sphere.

1. Removal of physical communication barriers. Barriers that stop others engaging can be simple things such as language (as in our mother tongues) but also the language that is used and where this is communicated. Adapting communication to be available to those who are blind, have limited sight, and hard of hearing also needs to be considered.

2. Removal of access barriers. Different to physical barriers but these are equally important. This not only aligns to open access but can be barriers including socio-economic barriers, cultural barriers, geographical barriers and any others that might stop or deter someone being involved.

3. Treat others with respect, dignity and empathy. Working within the research and academic sphere, science communicators are within a position of power and knowledge. It is integral and ethical to ensure the right treatment of others. This aligns to the personal attributes ethics.

4. Ensure work is carried out in a cooperative, democratic, equal and fair way. It is important that all those who are working on science communication and public engagement especially are worked with in a democratic way; if this is not done, it leads ust to question what is the benefit of working with others outside the academic sphere.

5. Give credit where credit is due. With all partnerships it is only right, and ethical, that all those involved are given appropriate credit for their work and contribution; working with non-academic audiences is no exception.

6. Ensure science communication and public engagement is two-way with mutual benefit. As the landscape develops and other groups become more involved with research it is important to ensure that all partnerships are of benefit to both parties, just as negotiations would take place in business agreements, this collaborative approach should work towards the best outcome for all involved.

From the ethics that have been discussed so far, this is the one which is most applicable to public engagement professionals. There are delicate balances to be achieved when working with others who are not from an academic realm, and these can be difficult to achieve and ethically carry out in the correct way. Durham University and The National Coordinating Centre for Public Engagement have been just two of the institutions who have gone about trying to navigate this tricky landscape. A guide to ethical principles and practice (2012) created by the two institutions highlighted that to ethically work with publics, practitioners needed to think about the following seven areas; Mutual respect, Equality and inclusion, Democratic participation, Active learning, Making a difference, Collective action and Personal integrity (2012).

As a public engagement professional, the key concepts which I keep in mind when guiding my ethical approach is "removing hierarchies", "give credit where credit is due" and "ensuring mutual benefit" for those involved.

One of the most common public engagement approaches is citizen science; where members of the public record a science aspect and report this into a larger dataset being collected by a researcher or research institution. The citizens in this process usually are active, interested, individuals who gain their own gratification from being involved in the research. In my opinion citizen science projects are highly reliant on these kind of individuals, which could ultimately be their own fall.

Medvecky & Leach (2017) are particularly concerned with the ethics surrounding citizen science, questioning; "Are the social hierarchies involved in citizen science leading to ethical problems? Who takes credit for the work (and which bits of the work?)". In my opinion, best practice public engagement, and therefore also citizen science, should remove these hierarchies. For this type of engagement and collaboration to be ethical, all parties involved need to be working on the same level; not one persons opinion should hold more power. This is a significant shift from what has been previously done, but as the research landscape changes; and as discussed above the teams working on solving problems are becoming ever increasing interdisciplinary, as must the hierarchal balances also adapt.

From my experience to date, citizen science and some public engagement being carried out in the research sphere, I would deem unethical when aligned to the ethical themes above. Many citizen science projects focus on motivated individuals contributing research work, however, many have fed back to me personally, that apart from the gratification they receive nothing in return.

This issue has also been picked up by large institutions including Horizon 2020 a Europe 2020 Flagship initiative aimed at securing Europe as being globally competitive (by driving economic growth and creating jobs). The programme "agreed that research is an investment in our future and so put it at the heart of the EU’s blueprint for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth and jobs." (European Commission, 2019). This again is not only showcasing the scope of where science communication needs to reach but also it's impacts. In a document regarding the Horizon 2020 programme, the European Commission highlighted the following in relation to citizen science:

"these new modes of innovation also raise ethical and regulatory considerations, including concerns regarding the protection of participating citizens, their potential exploitation, the collection of big data and related privacy considerations, as well as intellectual property issues" (Belgium, European Commission. 2019).

This is a prime example why it is necessary for science communicators and public engagement professionals globally to have ethical guidelines to abide by, and how they must align with large funding bodies such as the European Commission.

Personal attributes:

The characteristics science communication and public engagement professionals should strive to achieve.

1. Continuous improvement. As the research, science communication and public engagement landscapes develop, as should the professionals. This should not only be from a personal skills perspective but should also encompass improving the work and partnerships created.

2. Working with integrity. Incredibly difficult to measure, but an individual must believe what they are doing and communicating is credible. This can be down to the 'gut feeling'; if something doesn't feel right do not continue with it.

3. Acting in an accountable manner. We are all accountable for our actions and the implications these have. Taking into consideration the other ethics within this guidance, an individual must be prepared to explain why they made the decisions in their work and science communication.

4. Remain impartial and transparent. Working for an institution this can be incredibly difficult, but good science communication should remain impartial (as with other aspects of journalism) and ensure they are created and sourced in a transparent manner.

5. Ensure originality and uniqueness as a science communicator. This is remaining yourself when trying to balance all other ethics, approaches and commitment to science communication and public engagement. This is a vital part of allowing professionals to maintain an identity.

6. Reflect upon all aspects of science communication, and role as a science communicator. It is best practice for an individual to continuously review their own approach, their work, their communication methods and practices. An all rounded science communication and public engagement professional can only be beneficial.

This is one of the most difficult aspects of ethics to understand and reference as humans and therefore science communication and public engagement professionals are all so unique. As I have mentioned throughout the explanation behind some of these ethics, there has been some guiding thoughts that I have kept in the back of my mind. For professional conduct as a communicator I try to remember the following; follow my "moral compass", act in an "accountable" manner, "lead by example", work in a "reflective" way and to be "assertive, but knowing the limits of this" when working.

With this ethical approach, I have treated this like a person specification for a job. This is all about the person's attitude rather than the qualifications and skills they may have. As I have mentioned at the start of this blog post, this is simply my opinion and not scientific outputs, as I have approached this with my own bias and ideologies. Filipović has summarised the importance of different ethical perspectives very eloquently;

"There should never be just one ethical perspective. An ethical perspective which only aims at structures and organizations is as incomplete as one which only aims at individuals. The ideal goal is always something like an ideal self-control of the scientific actors and institutions." (2018) .

This highlights the important role that professionals have in communication, and therefore why it is integral we act with ethical intentions. It is vital that science communicators accurately communicate science as Medvecky, F highlights; "Indeed, scientific misinformation can be a very dangerous thing, but no more dangerous than holocaust denial (a form of historical misinformation)". (2017)

Bibliography.

Belgium. European Commission (2019) EN Horizon 2020 Work Programme 2018-2020 Retrieved from: http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/h2020/wp/2018-2020/main/h2020-wp1820-swfs_en.pdf

Burns T.W., O'Connor D.J. & Stocklmayer S.M. (2003) Science communication: a contemporary definition. Public Understanding of Science 12 (2) 183-202

Doi: https://doi-org.salford.idm.oclc.org/10.1177/09636625030122004

Durham University & The National Coordinating Centre for Public Engagement (2012) Community-based participatory research A guide to ethical principles and practice. Retrieved from: https://www.publicengagement.ac.uk/sites/default/files/publication/cbpr_ethics_guide_web_november_2012.pdf

Ethics. (2019) Oxford English Dictionary. Retrieved from: https://en-oxforddictionaries-com.salford.idm.oclc.org/definition/ethics

European Commission (2019) What is Horizon 2020 Retrieved from: https://ec.europa.eu/programmes/horizon2020/en/what-horizon-2020

Filipović , A (2018, 20, 08) Science Communication in the digital age. [Blog post] Retrieved from: https://elephantinthelab.org/science-communication-in-the-digital-age/ Doi: 10.5281/zenodo.1400555

Medvecky, F (2017) Fairness in Knowing: Science Communication and Epistemic Justice. Science and Engineering Ethics. 24 (5) 1393–1408 Doi: https://doi-org.salford.idm.oclc.org/10.1007/s11948-017-9977-0

Medvecky, F &Leach, J (2017) The ethics of science communication. Journal of science communication 16 (04) E. Retrieved from: https://jcom.sissa.it/sites/default/files/documents/JCOM_1604_2017_E.pdf

Science Europe (2019) Science Europe Roadmap. Retrieved from: https://www.scienceeurope.org/policy/roadmap/

United Nations (2019) Sustainable Development Goals. Retrieved from: https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/?menu=1300