Science Journalism, Value Judgments, and the Open Science Movement

Elliott, Kevin C.

doi:10.3389/fcomm.2019.00071

Cited by 14 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 40 publications

(51 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…For example, depending on the situation, people might want to know the major strengths and weaknesses of the available scientific information, the reasons why some studies disagree with others, the major gaps in existing evidence, or the major issues on which scientists agree and disagree. Science journalists can sometimes play an important role in making this information available to the public (Elliott 2019), but given the fragility and upheavals in contemporary journalism (Bubela et al 2009), it is important to consider a variety of avenues for making this content available to those who need it.…”

Section: Contentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Open Science for Non-Specialists: Making Open Science Meaningful Beyond the Scientific Community

Elliott¹

2022

Philos. sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A major goal of the open science movement is to make more scientific information available to non-specialists, but it has been difficult to meaningfully achieve that goal. In response, this paper argues for two steps: (1) focusing on the scientific content that is most relevant to non-specialist audiences; and (2) packaging that content in meaningful ways for those audiences. The paper uses a case study involving a major environmental health issue (namely, PFAS pollution) to illustrate how the proponents of open science can work with groups like government agencies, nongovernmental organizations, and extension programs to implement these two steps.

show abstract

Section: Contentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Open Science for Non-Specialists: Making Open Science Meaningful Beyond the Scientific Community

Elliott¹

2022

Philos. sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For example, funding agencies can promote interdisciplinary research projects designed to help science studies scholars work with scientists to uncover important value judgments (Schuurbiers and Fisher 2009). Science journalists can explore their role as important sources of information about value judgments for members of the public (Elliott 2019). In addition, scientists can brainstorm ways to make their efforts at open science more relevant not only for their fellow scientists but for other communities as well (Elliott and Resnik 2019).…”

Section: Insight #2: Major Forms Of Transparencymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Scholars working in other fields, such as the history and philosophy of science or science and technology studies, are also well placed to recognize important judgments. For some audiences, such as members of the public, journalists are the most important actors for communicating scientific information (Angler 2017; Elliott 2019). Finally, the actors who communicate scientific information are not always individuals.…”

Section: A Taxonomy Of Transparencymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Public engagement in research, whether it be through citizen science projects or community-based participatory research or alternative approaches, can also be a powerful mechanism for uncovering important value judgments. A distinctive element of transparency initiatives directed toward the public is that some of the most important actors are science journalists (Elliott 2019). Important venues for communicating this information include not only traditional media articles but also social media.…”

Section: Using the Taxonomymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A Taxonomy of Transparency in Science

Elliott

2020

Can. J. of Philosophy

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Both scientists and philosophers of science have recently emphasized the importance of promoting transparency in science. For scientists, transparency is a way to promote reproducibility, progress, and trust in research. For philosophers of science, transparency can help address the value-ladenness of scientific research in a responsible way. Nevertheless, the concept of transparency is a complex one. Scientists can be transparent about many different things, for many different reasons, on behalf of many different stakeholders. This paper proposes a taxonomy that clarifies the major dimensions along which approaches to transparency can vary. By doing so, it provides several insights that philosophers and other science studies scholars can pursue. In particular, it helps address common objections to pursuing transparency in science, it clarifies major forms of transparency, and it suggests avenues for further research on this topic.

show abstract

“…Community‐based participatory research (CBPR) projects and citizen science initiatives have also given many community members the opportunity to learn about and contribute to scientific research that matters to them (Cavalier & Kennedy, 2016 ; Roy et al, 2012 ). For concerned community members who do not have the time to engage in CBPR or citizen science, science journalists and NGOs also have important roles to play in making scientific information available in meaningful ways (Elliott, 2019 ). In addition, corporations have recently been taking steps to make more information about their products available to the public, especially in the environmental regulatory context (see Section “Open Science in Regulatory Era and Stakeholder Involvement”).…”

Section: The Open Science Movement An Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Open Science in regulatory environmental risk assessment

Brock

Elliott

Gladbach

et al. 2021

Integr Envir Assess & Manag

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A possible way to alleviate the public skepticism toward regulatory science is to increase transparency by making all data and value judgments used in regulatory decision making accessible for public interpretation, ideally early on in the process, and following the concepts of Open Science. This paper discusses the opportunities and challenges in strengthening Open Science initiatives in regulatory environmental risk assessment (ERA). In this discussion paper, we argue that the benefits associated with Open Science in regulatory ERA far outweigh its perceived risks. All stakeholders involved in regulatory ERA (e.g., governmental regulatory authorities, private sector, academia, and nongovernmental organizations), as well as professional organizations like the Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, can play a key role in supporting the Open Science initiative, by promoting the use of recommended reporting criteria for reliability and relevance of data and tools used in ERA, and by developing a communication strategy for both professionals and nonprofessionals to transparently explain the socioeconomic value judgments and scientific principles underlying regulatory ERA. Integr Environ Assess Manag 2021;00:1-14.

show abstract

Science Journalism, Value Judgments, and the Open Science Movement

Cited by 14 publications

References 40 publications

Open Science for Non-Specialists: Making Open Science Meaningful Beyond the Scientific Community

Open Science for Non-Specialists: Making Open Science Meaningful Beyond the Scientific Community

A Taxonomy of Transparency in Science

Open Science in regulatory environmental risk assessment

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About