Summary 1.Ecologists and conservation biologists consider many issues when designing a field study, such as the expected value of the data, the interests of the study species, the welfare of individual organisms and the cost of the project. These different issues or values often conflict; however, neither animal ethics nor environmental ethics provides practical guidance on how to assess trade-offs between them. 2. We developed a decision framework for considering trade-offs between values in ecological research, drawing on the field of ecological ethics. We used a case study of the population genetics of three frog species, in which a researcher must choose between four methods of sampling DNA from the study animals. We measured species welfare as the reduction in population growth rate following sampling, and assessed individual welfare using two different definitions: (i) the level of suffering experienced by an animal, and (ii) the level of suffering combined with loss of future life. 3. Tipping the tails of tadpoles ranked as the best sampling method for species welfare, while collecting whole tadpoles and buccal swabbing of adult frogs ranked best for the first and second definitions of individual welfare, respectively. Toe clipping of adult frogs ranked as the worst sampling method for species welfare and the first definition of individual welfare, and equal worst for the second definition of individual welfare. 4. When considering species and individual welfare simultaneously, toe clipping was clearly inferior to the other sampling methods, but no single sampling method was clearly superior to the other three. Buccal swabbing, collecting tadpoles and tail tipping were all preferred options, depending on the definition of individual welfare and the level of precision with which we assessed species welfare. 5. Synthesis and applications. The decision framework we present can be used by ecologists to assess ethical and other trade-offs when planning field studies. A formal decision analysis makes transparent how a researcher might negotiate competing ethical, financial and practical objectives. Defining the components of the decision in this way can help avoid errors associated with human judgement and linguistic uncertainty.

Synthetic gene drive approaches are nascent technologies with potential applicability for pest control for conservation purposes. Responsible science mandates that society be engaged in a dialogue over new technology, particularly where there exist global ramifications as with gene drive. We hypothesize that public attitudes towards gene drive are not formed on scientific knowledge or demographics alone, but are heavily influenced by underlying worldviews, which encapsulate a broad and interactive system of attitudes, beliefs, and values. To test this, we conducted a national survey in New Zealand (n = 8199) and found that respondents clustered into four distinct segments with underlying worldviews, better able to explain attitudes toward gene drive than either the participants' scientific knowledge or other explanatory factors such demographics, political ideology or religiosity. We found that the use of gene drive for biodiversity conservation currently has moderate (32%) levels of support in New Zealand but that varied substantially across the four segments. Should gene drive become a technically viable approach for pest control, understanding the worldviews that shape public decision-making can guide a more empathetic engagement process and empower society to participate in informed decisionmaking about if and how gene drive should be used for conservation purposes. ARTICLE HISTORY

In this article, we suggest that three concepts from cultural and media studies might be useful for analysing the ways audiences are constructed in science communication: that media are immanent to society, media are multiple and various, and audiences are active. This article uses those concepts, along with insights from Science and Technology Studies (STS), to examine the category of 'the disengaged' within science communication. This article deals with the contrast between 'common sense' and scholarly ideas of media and audiences in the field of cultural and media studies. It compares the 'common sense' with scholarly ideas of science publics from STS. We conclude that it may be time to reconsider the ontology of publics and the disengaged for science communication.

No abstract

What is it that really makes communicating science a good, moral thing to do? And are there limits to the potential ‘goodness’ of science communication? In this article, we argue it is time we consider what an ethics of science communication might look like. Not only will this help us figure out what doing the right, moral thing might be. It also invites us to think through one of the most perplexing, challenging and pressing question for this still emerging field: what are the core unifying features of science communication?