As a communication professional, I know firsthand that communication plays a vital role in shaping relationships between organizations and stakeholders. By upholding ethical standards, such as the International Association of Business Communicators’ Code of Ethics for Professional Communicators and the Canadian Public Relations Society’s Code of Professional Standards, communication professionals like myself work to ensure transparency, trustworthiness and integrity on behalf of our employers.
With ethical guidelines top-of-mind in my daily work, I started to wonder whether a comparable set of standards exists for scientists, researchers and companies when practicing science communication. Science communication refers to the sharing of scientific research and its potential applications with the public (for background information on the topic, check out a treasure trove of other science communication-related posts on Signals here).
Underlying my thinking is that since groundbreaking technologies in the stem cell and regenerative medicine field hold the promise of transforming health care, abiding by a set of ethical standards when sharing advances is critical for ensuring the public gains an understanding of where the science is at today, and its potential for the future.
In addition, a recent episode of CCRM’s podcast, Commercializing Living Therapies with CCRM, called “Unapproved stem cell therapies: Risks, realities and responsibilities,” highlights the downsides of what I would consider unethical science communication. The episode covers the consequences of clinics that sell unapproved treatments targeting desperate or uninformed patients with ads, social media posts, etc., to drive demand for potentially risky procedures.
As I conducted research for this post, I learned that a formal set of ethical standards for the global science communication community does not exist (yet?). That said, institutions, organizations or professional associations may have their own ethics policies that may apply to science communication and/or professional behaviour generally. For example, I found that the U.S.-based National Association of Science Writers has a code of ethics and conduct for its members, the Government of Canada’s National Research Council has a policy on research and scientific integrity, and Engineers Canada has its own code of ethics.
Fortunately, the Journal of Science Communication published a 2017 article suggesting that the Mertonian norms, a set of four principles that describe the values and practices of modern science, can guide science communicators, whether or not they are governed by a separate policy. These principles are noted below, accompanied by examples illustrating each one in action.
Principle 1: Communalism (Common ownership of scientific knowledge)
An example of how a science communicator can integrate this principle is ensuring that publicly funded research is shared openly with broad audiences, avoiding paywalled journals as the sole sources of information (as a first step, reference the University of Oxford’s tool for finding open-access publications here). Accessible language is used to summarize findings. The goal is to avoid the privatization of knowledge, and society can benefit from understanding (and accessing) scientific discoveries.
Principle 2: Universalism (Science should be evaluated independently of who conducts it)
When covering new research, a science communicator should focus on the validity of the study’s methodology and findings, rather than the prestige of the institution or the researcher’s professional background. This would reduce bias and promote trust in science based on evidence rather than authority or reputation.
Principle 3: Disinterestedness (Scientists should act for the benefit of knowledge, not personal gain)
A science communicator must disclose potential conflicts of interest when discussing scientific breakthroughs, such as funding sources or industry ties. They should avoid sensationalism and exaggerating results for personal or organizational gain. This can help ensure audiences receive objective and trustworthy information rather than narratives that serve particular interests.
Principle 4: Organized Skepticism (All scientific claims should be critically scrutinized)
The science communicator should present findings with appropriate caveats, emphasizing that science is an evolving process. It’s essential to fact-check claims, cite peer-reviewed sources, and encourage audiences to think critically rather than accept information at face value. By fostering a culture of healthy skepticism, we can prevent the spread of misinformation and encourage evidence-based decisions.
By prioritizing the four principles outlined above, and considering the long-term societal impact, we can navigate the intersection of science communications and ethics effectively, fostering trust and accountability.
For more on ethics in science communication, watch the recording of a robust panel discussion hosted by the U.S.-based Institute for Science & Policy in 2023, called “Ethical Boundaries and Obligations of Communicating Science,” in the video below.
Laine Bodnar
Latest posts by Laine Bodnar (see all)
- Right Turn: Ethics in science communication - April 8, 2025
- Regulatory affairs careers: What scientists need to know - March 18, 2025
- How to kickstart scicomm careers beyond academia - October 31, 2024
Comments