CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 141Climate Change Communication and PerceptionRisk Perception and ManagementAcademic Publishing and Open Access

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 51 of the 51 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The ethics of scientific communication under uncertainty

Open access
Keohane, Robert O, Lane, Melissa, Oppenheimer, Michael·2014·Politics, Philosophy & Economics
DOI 10.1177/1470594x14538570
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Communication by scientists with policy makers and attentive publics raises ethical issues. Scientists need to decide how to communicate knowledge effectively in a way that nonscientists can understand and use, while remaining honest scientists and presenting estimates of the uncertainty of their inferences. They need to understand their own ethical choices in using scientific information to communicate to audiences. These issues were salient in the Fourth Assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change with respect to possible sea level rise from disintegration of the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets. Due to uncertainty, the reported values of projected sea level rise were incomplete, potentially leading some relevant audiences to underestimate future risk. Such judgments should be made in a principled rather than an ad hoc manner. Five principles for scientific communication under such conditions are important: honesty, precision, audience relevance, process transparency, and specification of uncertainty about conclusions. Some of these principles are of intrinsic importance while others are merely instrumental and subject to trade-offs among them. Scientists engaged in assessments under uncertainty should understand these principles and which trade-offs are acceptable.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/1470594x14538570

Cites

51 of 51 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Show all 51 references

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Brossard D, 2010, Communicating Science: New Agendas in Communication, 11

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 101–140 of 140

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Keohane, R. O., Lane, M., & Oppenheimer, M.
Affiliations
Princeton University (US)
Corresponding author
Lane, Melissa
ORCID
Venue
Politics, Philosophy & Economics
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
2014-06-27
Volume
13
Issue
4
Pages
343-368
ISSN
  • 1470-594X (ISSN-L)
  • 1741-3060
DOI
10.1177/1470594x14538570
OpenAlex
W2106203255
Cited by
141
References
51
Citations by year
2026: 32 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 17 · 2023: 20 · 2022: 25 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 6
FWCI
17.37
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Politics Philosophy & Economics (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Climate Change Communication and Perception
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Risk Perception and Management
  • Social Sciences › Library and Information Sciences › Academic Publishing and Open Access
Keywords
uncertainty communication, science-policy communication, sea level projections, Greenland ice sheet, West Antarctic Ice Sheet, precision, process transparency, risk communication, ethical principles

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review