Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Fairness in Knowing: Science Communication and Epistemic Justice

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Science and Engineering Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Science communication, as a field and as a practice, is fundamentally about knowledge distribution; it is about the access to, and the sharing of knowledge. All distribution (science communication included) brings with it issues of ethics and justice. Indeed, whether science communicators acknowledge it or not, they get to decide both which knowledge is shared (by choosing which topic is communicated), and who gets access to this knowledge (by choosing which audience it is presented to). As a result, the decisions of science communicators have important implications for epistemic justice: how knowledge is distributed fairly and equitably. This paper presents an overview of issues related to epistemic justice for science communication, and argues that there are two quite distinct ways in which science communicators can be just (or unjust) in the way they distribute knowledge. Both of these paths will be considered before concluding that, at least on one of these accounts, science communication as a field and as a practice is fundamentally epistemically unjust. Possible ways to redress this injustice are suggested.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aitken, M. (2009). Wind power planning controversies and the construction of ‘expert’ and ‘lay’ knowledges. Science as Culture, 18(1), 47–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, E. (2012). Epistemic justice as a virtue of social institutions. Social Epistemology, 26(2), 163–173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bauer, M. W., Allum, N., & Miller, S. (2007). What can we learn from 25 years of PUS survey research? Liberating and expanding the agenda. Public Understanding of Science, 16(1), 79–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Besley, J. C. (2009). Focusing on fairness in science and risk communication. In L. Kahlor & P. Stout (Eds.), Communicating science: New agendas in science communication (pp. 68–87). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

  • Boulding, K. E. (1966). The economics of knowledge and the knowledge of economics. The American Economic Review, 56(1/2), 1–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bryson, M., & De Castell, S. (1996). Learning to make a difference: Gender, new technologies, and in/equity. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 3(2), 119–135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Centre for Science Communication. (2016). About Us. Retrieved August 1, 2017, from http://sciencecommunication.info/thecentre/aboutus.html.

  • Clotfelter, C. T. (2014). Buying the best: Cost escalation in elite higher education. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coady, D. (2010). Two concepts of epistemic injustice. Episteme, 7(02), 101–113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Collins, H. M., & Evans, R. (2002). The third wave of science studies of expertise and experience. Social Studies of Science, 32(2), 235–296.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dahlstrom, M. F., & Ho, S. S. (2012). Ethical considerations of using narrative to communicate science. Science Communication, 34(5), 592–617.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Department for Business Innovation and Skills. (2010). Science for all: Report and action plan from the science for all expert group (to the Department for Business Innovation & Skills). http://www.bis.gov.uk/assets/biscore/corporate/docs/s/science-for-all-report.pdf.

  • Department of Innovation Industry Science and Research. (2010). Inspiring Australia: A national strategy for engagement with the sciences. Canberra: The Minister for Innovation Industry Science and Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dietz, T. (2013). Bringing values and deliberation to science communication. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110(Supplement 3), 14081–14087. doi:10.1073/pnas.1212740110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duus-Otterström, G. (2012). Weak and strong luck egalitarianism. Contemporary Political Theory, 11(2), 153–171.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dworkin, R. (2003). Equality, luck and hierarchy. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 31(2), 190–198.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fourcade, M., Ollion, E., & Algan, Y. (2015). The superiority of economists. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 29(1), 89–114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fricker, M. (2007). Epistemic injustice: Power and the ethics of knowing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Fuller, S. (1987). On regulating what is known: A way to social epistemology. Synthese, 73(1), 145–183.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gardiner, S. M. (2011). A perfect moral storm: The ethical tragedy of climate change. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Gorski, P. (2005). Education equity and the digital divide. AACE Journal, 13(1), 3–45.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grand, A., Davies, G., Holliman, R., & Adams, A. (2015). Mapping public engagement with research in a UK university. PLoS ONE, 10(4), e0121874.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hails, R., & Kinderlerer, J. (2003). The GM public debate: Context and communication strategies. Nature Reviews Genetics, 4(10), 819–825.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hendrix, E. (2005). Permanent injustice: Rawls’ theory of justice and the digital divide. Educational Technology & Society, 8(1), 63–68.

    Google Scholar 

  • Henwood, F., Wyatt, S., Hart, A., & Smith, J. (2003). ‘Ignorance is bliss sometimes’: Constraints on the emergence of the ‘informed patient’ in the changing landscapes of health information. Sociology of Health & Illness, 25(6), 589–607.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holliman, R., & Holti, R. (2014). Defining engaged research at the OU. RC-2014-02-12. Milton Keynes, UK: The Open University. http://www.open.ac.uk/blogs/per/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/RC-2014-02-12-Engaged-Research.pdf (visited on August 3, 2017).

  • Illes, J., Moser, M., McCormick, J. B., Racine, E., Blakeslee, S., Caplan, A., Hayden, E. C., Ingram, J., Lohwater, T., McKnight, P., Nicholson, C., Phillips, A., Sauvé, K., Snell, E., & Weiss, S. (2010). Neurotalk: Improving the communication of neuroscience research. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 11(1), 61–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jasanoff, S. (2004). Science and citizenship: A new synergy. Science and Public Policy, 31(2), 90–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jensen, E., & Buckley, N. (2014). Why people attend science festivals: Interests, motivations and self-reported benefits of public engagement with research. Public Understanding of Science, 23(5), 557–573.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahan, D. M., Peters, E., Wittlin, M., Slovic, P., Ouellette, L. L., Braman, D., & Mandel, G. (2012). The polarizing impact of science literacy and numeracy on perceived climate change risks. Nature Climate Change, 2(10), 732–735. http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v2/n10/abs/nclimate1547.html - supplementary-information.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kurath, M., & Gisler, P. (2009). Informing, involving or engaging? Science communication, in the ages of atom-, bio- and nanotechnology. Public Understanding of Science, 18(5), 559–573.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lakatos, I., Feyerabend, P., & Motterlini, M. (1999). For and against method: Including Lakatos’s lectures on scientific method and the Lakatos-Feyerabend correspondence. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Lamont, J., & Favor, C. (2008). Distributive justice. In E. Zalta (Ed.), Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2008/entries/justice-distributiv.

  • McGoey, L. (2012). Strategic unknowns: Towards a sociology of ignorance. Economy and Society, 41(1), 1–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Medina, J. (2011). The relevance of credibility excess in a proportional view of epistemic injustice: Differential epistemic authority and the social imaginary. Social Epistemology, 25(1), 15–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Medvecky, F. (2016). The cost of being known: Economics, science communication and epistemic justice. In J. Collier (Ed.), The future of social epistemology: A collective vision. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

    Google Scholar 

  • Medvecky, F., & Leach, J. (2013). The ethics of distributing scientific knowledge: Epistemic and ethical injustices in context. In J. Goodwin, M. Dahlstrom, & S. Priest (Eds.), Ethical issues in science communication: A theory-based approach. Ames, Iowa: Science Communication Project.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment. (2014). A nation of curious minds: A national strategic plan for science in society. Wellington: New Zealand Government.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moritz, J. M. (2009). Doubt, deception, and dogma: Science and religion in film. Theology and Science., 7(3), 207–212.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nielsen, K. (1979). Radical egalitarian justice: Justice as equality. Social Theory and Practice, 5(2), 209–226.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nisbet, M. C. (2009). Communicating climate change: Why frames matter for public engagement. Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development, 51(2), 12–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nisbet, M. C., & Scheufele, D. A. (2009). What’s next for science communication? Promising directions and lingering distractions. American Journal of Botany, 96(10), 1767–1778.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nordhaus, W. D. (2007). A review of “the stern review on the economics of climate change”. Journal of Economic Literature, 45(3), 686–702.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nowotny, H., Scott, P., & Gibbons, M. (2005). The changing nature of public science. In H. Nowotny, D. Pestre, E. Schmidt-Aßmann, H. Schultze-Fielitz & H.-H. Trutte (Eds.), The public nature of science under assault (pp. 1–27). Heidelberg: Springer.

  • Nozick, Robert. (1974). Anarchy, state and Utopia. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Open Science Collaboration. (2015). Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science, 349(6251), 4716. doi:10.1126/science.aac4716.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Palmer, S. E., & Schibeci, R. A. (2014). What conceptions of science communication are espoused by science research funding bodies? Public Understanding of Science, 23(5), 511–527.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Priest, S. H. (2010). Coming of age in the academy? The status of our emerging field. Journal of Science Communication, 9(03), C06.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rawls, J. (1999). A theory of justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Revell, L. (2010). Religious education, conflict and diversity: An exploration of young children’s perceptions of Islam. Educational Studies, 36(2), 207–215. doi:10.1080/03055690903162390.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roemer, J. E. (1998). Theories of distributive justice. Harvard: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scheffler, S. (2003). What is egalitrianism? Philosophy & Public Affairs, 31(1), 5–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt, C. W. (2009). Communication gap: The disconnect between what scientists say and what the public hears. Environmental Health Perspectives, 117(12), A548–A551.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Science Communication: Description. (2016). Retrieved August 16, 2016, from https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/journal/science-communication.

  • Singh, S. (2001). Gender and the use of the internet at home. New Media & Society, 3(4), 395–415. doi:10.1177/1461444801003004001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stern, N. (2007). The economics of climate change: The Stern review. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Stilgoe, J., Lock, S. J., & Wilsdon, J. (2014). Why should we promote public engagement with science? Public Understanding of Science, 23(1), 4–15. doi:10.1177/0963662513518154.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomas, G., & Durant, J. (1987). Why should we promote the public understanding of science. Scientific Literacy Papers, 1, 1–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, P. B. (2012). Ethics and risk communication. Science Communication, 34(5), 618–641.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tol, R. (2006). The stern review of the economics of climate change: A comment. Energy & Environment, 17(6), 977–981.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trench, B. (2008). Towards an analytical framework of science communication models. In D. Cheng, M. Claessens, T. Gascoigne, J. Metcalfe, B. Schiele & S. Shi (Eds.), Communicating science in social contexts. New models, new practices (pp. 119–135). New York: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Trend, D. (2001). Welcome to cyberschool: Education at the crossroads in the information age. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilkinson, C., & Weitkamp, E. (2016). Creative research communication: Theory and practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wynne, B. (2003). Seasick on the third wave? Subverting the hegemony of propositionalism: Response to Collins & Evans (2002). Social Studies of Science, 33(3), 401–417.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This paper was presented at PCST2016 in Istanbul, and I am grateful for comments for received from the audience in greatly improving the argument. I am also grateful to Joan Leach for many discussions on the topic.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Centre for Science Communication, University of Otago, P.O. Box 56, Dunedin, 9054, New Zealand

    Fabien Medvecky

Authors
  1. Fabien Medvecky
    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

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Medvecky, F. Fairness in Knowing: Science Communication and Epistemic Justice. Sci Eng Ethics 24, 1393–1408 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-017-9977-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-017-9977-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation