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 accessAbstract
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
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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?
In the citing paper
“in aiming to communicate their findings effectively to laypeople so that they can understand and use them, scientists might oversimplify results(Forge [2008]), ignore the value judgements underlying their conclusions(Alexandrova [2018]), or fail to acknowledge uncertainty(Keohane et al. [2014]).”
From Science Communication and the Problematic Impact of Descriptive Norms (2023) · cites this paper as Keohane et al. [2014]
Citations
Cites
The Framing of Decisions and the Psychology of Choice
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1981) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.7455683 · Cited by 18,497
(2007) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 9,612
Barker, T. J., Bashmakov, I., Bernstein, L., Bogner, J. R., Bosch, P. C., Dave, R., Davidson, O., Fisher, B. S., Grubb, M. J., Gupta, S. K., et al. (2007) · Socio-Environmental Systems Modeling · Cited by 9,160
“Risk, Ambiguity, and the Savage Axioms.”
Ellsberg, D. (1961) · The Quarterly Journal of Economics · doi:10.2307/1884324 · Cited by 7,891
Latour, B. (2004) · Harvard University Press eBooks · doi:10.4159/9780674039964 · Cited by 2,465
Zagzebski, L. T. (1996) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9781139174763 · Cited by 2,303
The Honest Broker: Making Sense of Science in Policy and Politics
Pielke, Jr. (2007) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511818110 · Cited by 2,020 · cited 1×
“On the responsibilities of scientists in relation to policy positions, see Pielke (2007) and Don- ner (2014).”
BackgroundPolitics of Nature: How to Bring the Sciences into Democracy
Latour, B., & Porter, C. (2004) · Cited by 1,863
Communicating climate change: history, challenges, process and future directions
Moser, S. C. (2009) · Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews Climate Change · doi:10.1002/wcc.11 · Cited by 1,322
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- Brossard D, 2010, Communicating Science: New Agendas in Communication, 11
Cited by
Sorted by citations
The Evolving Field of Risk Communication
Balog‐Way, D. H. P., McComas, K. A., & Besley, J. C. (2020) · Risk Analysis · doi:10.1111/risa.13615 · Cited by 263
John, S. D. (2017) · Social Epistemology · doi:10.1080/02691728.2017.1410864 · Cited by 188
The Effects of Uncertainty Frames in Three Science Communication Topics
Gustafson, A., & Rice, R. E. (2019) · Science Communication · doi:10.1177/1075547019870811 · Cited by 151
Science, Values, and Science Communication: Competencies for Pushing Beyond the Deficit Model
Seethaler, S. L., Evans, J. H., Gere, C., & Rajagopalan, R. M. (2019) · Science Communication · doi:10.1177/1075547019847484 · Cited by 144
McGovern, A., Ebert‐Uphoff, I., Gagne, D. J., & Bostrom, A. (2022) · Environmental Data Science · doi:10.1017/eds.2022.5 · Cited by 141
Metadata
- Authors
- Keohane, R. O., Lane, M., & Oppenheimer, M.
- Affiliations
- Princeton University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Lane, Melissa
- 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
- 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
- hybrid
- doi.org
- 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
