David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
NanoEthics 4 (3):215-220 (2010)
In this paper, I will discuss the responsibilities that scientists have for ensuring their work is interpreted correctly. I will argue that there are three good reasons for scientists to work to ensure the appropriate communication of their findings. First, I will argue that scientists have a general obligation to ensure scientific research is communicated properly based on the vulnerability of others to the misrepresentation of their work. Second, I will argue that scientists have a special obligation to do so because of the power we as a society invest in them as specialists and professionals. Finally, I will argue that scientists ought to ensure their work is interpreted correctly based on prudential, self-interested considerations. I will conclude by offering suggestions regarding policy considerations
|Keywords||Responsibility Applied ethics Ethics of science Ethics of technology Communication Vulnerability Science communication|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
Philip Kitcher (2001). Science, Truth, and Democracy. Oxford University Press.
Seumas Miller & Michael J. Selgelid (2007). Ethical and Philosophical Consideration of the Dual-Use Dilemma in the Biological Sciences. Science and Engineering Ethics 13 (4):523-580.
Cordelia Fine (2008). Will Working Mothers' Brains Explode? The Popular New Genre of Neurosexism. Neuroethics 1 (1):69-72.
Sam Harris (2006). The End of Faith: Religion, Terror and the Future of Reason. Science and Society 70 (4):572-574.
Citations of this work BETA
Ana Delicado, Raquel Rego, Cristina Palma Conceição, Inês Pereira & Luís Junqueira (2014). What Roles for Scientific Associations in Contemporary Science? Minerva 52 (4):439-465.
Similar books and articles
R. Brownhill & L. Merricks (2002). Ethics and Science: Educating the Public. Science and Engineering Ethics 8 (1):43-57.
Vivian Weil (2002). Making Sense of Scientists' Responsibilities at the Interface of Science and Society. Science and Engineering Ethics 8 (2):223-227.
Joshua Knobe & Richard Samuels (2013). Thinking Like a Scientist: Innateness as a Case Study. Cognition 126 (1):72-86.
Boyce Rensberger (2000). Why Scientists Should Cooperate with Journalists. Science and Engineering Ethics 6 (4):549-552.
Stanley Joel Reiser & Ruth E. Bulger (1997). The Social Responsibilities of Biological Scientists. Science and Engineering Ethics 3 (2):137-143.
Ellen M. Maccarone (2005). The Ethics of Advocacy. Environmental Philosophy 2 (1):44-53.
Zubin Master & David B. Resnik (2013). Hype and Public Trust in Science. Science and Engineering Ethics 19 (2):321-335.
K. Brad Wray (2003). Is Science Really a Young Man's Game? Social Studies of Science 33:137-49.
Robert R. Kuehn, Scientific Speech: Protecting the Right of Environmental Scientists to Express Professional Opinions.
Melissa S. Anderson, Emily A. Ronning, Raymond De Vries & Brian C. Martinson (2007). The Perverse Effects of Competition on Scientists' Work and Relationships. Science and Engineering Ethics 13 (4):437-461.
Barbara Nicholas (2001). Exploring a Moral Landscape: Genetic Science and Ethics. Hypatia 16 (1):45-63.
David Resnik (2011). Scientific Research and the Public Trust. Science and Engineering Ethics 17 (3):399-409.
Paul J. Friedman (2002). The Impact of Conflict of Interest on Trust in Science. Science and Engineering Ethics 8 (3):413-420.
William L. Ascher (2004). Scientific Information and Uncertainty: Challenges for the Use of Science in Policymaking. Science and Engineering Ethics 10 (3):437-455.
Added to index2010-11-18
Total downloads17 ( #157,328 of 1,725,867 )
Recent downloads (6 months)4 ( #166,958 of 1,725,867 )
How can I increase my downloads?