This award to the Environmental Law Institute (ELI) supports a 1.5-day multi-disciplinary workshop in Washington, D.C. at which scientists, lawyers, and media professionals will discuss how they address and communicate scientific uncertainty on environmental issues, subject to the ethical standards of their respective fields. In particular, the treatment of subjects such as climatology, weather forecasting, hydraulic fracturing, and synthetic biology inevitably requires that uncertainty be explained and addressed.
The goal of this workshop is twofold: (1) to facilitate more effective cross-discipline communications by having participants better understand the approaches their peers take to scientific uncertainty and the ethical reasons underlying these approaches; and (2) to promote more transparent and constructive discussion of major environmental issues by ensuring that people understand the professional constraints on the scientific, legal, and media professionals charged with communicating the nature and importance of scientific uncertainty.
Important questions of public policy often involve varying degrees of uncertainty in the science - for example, over what particular data or trends mean, or over the significance of a lack of data. Public decisions are heavily informed by the data, information, and analysis developed and communicated by scientists, lawyers, and members of the media. Each of these professions,however,thinks about scientific uncertainty differently with differences shaped, in large part, by internal ethical standards.
This workshop, and the resulting proceedings which ELI will publish, could contribute to a fuller, fairer, and more transparent discourse on controversial public policy issues where decisions must be made in the face of scientific uncertainty. Additionally, the transfer of information at the workshop among a diverse range of scientific, legal, and media participants will allow them to draw on a new understanding when they are working with their peers in other professions. Ultimately, the long-term goal is better decision-making on matters of public policy significance that are affected by scientific uncertainty.
In September 2014, the Environmental Law Institute (ELI) organized and convened a multidisciplinary workshop entitled The Ethics of Communicating Scientific Uncertainty: Understanding How Scientists, Environmental Lawyers, and Journalists Treat Uncertainty. The workshop goals were: (1) to help participants better understand how their peers approach scientific uncertainty, and the ethical reasons underlying these approaches; and (2) to promote more transparent and constructive debate on major environmental and public health issues. Around fifty participants from the fields of science, law, and journalism explored how they address scientific uncertainty, subject to their professions’ norms and ethical standards. Prior to the workshop, ELI hosted an introductory webinar, where three panelists from the fields of science, law, and journalism discussed the ethics of communicating uncertainty in their respective professions. The webinar featured presentations from: George Gray, Department of Environmental and Occupational Health, George Washington University; Jim Hilbert, Expert Witness Training Academy, William Mitchell College of Law; and David Poulson, Knight Center for Environmental Journalism, Michigan State University. The webinar has been archived at www.eli.org/ethics-of-uncertainty. Also prior to the workshop, participants were asked to respond to a questionnaire about their profession’s guidelines and their own experiences with communicating scientific uncertainty. The results (available at www.eli.org/scientific-uncertainty/questionnaire) indicate how the three different professions treat scientific uncertainty. Journalists often seek to reduce uncertainty with the use of multiple sources and research to identify scientific uncertainty. Lawyers and advocates often seek to maximize communication of scientific uncertainty as a tool to support a position. Scientists often seek to analyze and explain uncertainty, moving the field toward consensus. At the workshop, the participants explored challenges to and solutions for communicating scientific uncertainty as it relates to three specific issues — climate change, hydraulic fracturing, and chemical exposure. They also broke into groups by profession and explored the ethics and professional norms that influence communication of scientific uncertainty, as detailed below. SCIENTISTS The scientists first examined challenges with ethics and professional norms that relate to communicating scientific uncertainty. They focused on two types of issues: (1) misconduct; and (2) norms. First, the group discussed the fact that some scientists behave in ways that are violations of professional and ethical standards when intentionally miscommunicating science. Beyond these acts of misconduct, the breakout group examined the internal and external norms that drive communication approaches. Solutions to these challenges include the need for synthesis-type approaches within and across fields of science so that the full suite of information on a given topic is evaluated and shared holistically. JOURNALISTS The journalist group noted several challenges related to communicating scientific uncertainty: these included the desire to present balanced information that could in fact represent a false balance. However, several professional norms support improved approaches, including the journalist’s role as an objective conveyor of information and role in informing the public. To overcome professional challenges, the group identified the role of journalists in engaging with communities and uncovering information that would allow scientists and lawyers to delve deeper into an issue. They also discussed the need for a broader, more clearly defined gap between journalism and advocacy. LAWYERS The lawyer group noted that truth is not per se the client’s priority, but recognized that lawyers do share the requirement to avoid flat-out untruth. Further, the group recognized that lawyers have many roles: not only as litigators, but also as policy-makers, professors, legislative advisors, researchers, and more. Different ethical responsibilities and professional norms arise depending on which role lawyers are playing. Even in a client-driven setting, the group also discussed the role that lawyers play as provider of candid (and often privileged) legal advice. Another role lawyers serve is as public citizen with a responsibility to more accurately portray scientific uncertainty.
