The Ethics of Communicating Scientific Uncertainty: Understanding How Scientists, Environmental Lawyers, and Reporters Treat Uncertainty Workshops; Fall 2015 and Spring 2016

该奖项支持在华盛顿特区举行的两个多学科研讨会，科学家、律师和媒体专业人士将在研讨会上探讨科学不确定性与伦理和专业规范之间的关系，以便有效地从伦理角度交流和教授复杂的科学、技术、工程和数学(STEM)概念。这些研讨会将建立在之前由美国国家科学基金会资助、由环境法研究所(ELI)运营的试点研讨会的基础上，该研讨会将科学家、律师和记者聚集在一起。研讨会的目标有三个：1)通过加深参与者对他们的同行为解决科学不确定性所采取的方法以及这些方法背后的伦理和规范原因的理解，促进更有效的跨学科交流；2)通过加深公众对负责传播科学不确定性的科学、法律和媒体专业人员的伦理和纪律约束的理解，促进关于重大科学问题的更透明和更具建设性的辩论；以及3)通过技术和非技术演示、同行评议的出版物和面向非专业受众的产出，将在理解和以伦理方式传达科学不确定性和潜在解决方案方面的挑战带到前沿。召开研讨会背后的动机是，公共决策在很大程度上受到科学家、律师和媒体成员开发和传达的数据、信息和分析的影响。然而，这些职业对科学不确定性的思考是不同的，这在很大程度上是由它们自己的内部道德标准和职业规范决定的。

This award supports two multi-disciplinary workshops in Washington, DC, at which scientists, lawyers, and media professionals will explore the relationship between scientific uncertainty and ethical and professional norms in communicating and teaching complex Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) concepts effectively and ethically. The workshops will build on a previous pilot workshop funded by the NSF and run by the Environmental Law Institute (ELI) that brought scientists, lawyers, and journalists together. The goals of the workshops are three-fold: 1) to facilitate more effective cross-discipline communications by deepening participants' understanding of the approaches their peers take to address scientific uncertainty, and the ethical and normative reasons underlying these approaches; 2) to promote more transparent and constructive debate on major scientific issues by deepening public understanding of the ethical and disciplinary constraints on scientific, legal, and media professionals charged with communicating scientific uncertainty; and 3) to bring the challenges in understanding and ethically communicating scientific uncertainty and potential solutions to the forefront through technical and non-technical presentations, peer-reviewed publication, and outputs for lay audiences.The motivation behind convening the workshops is the notion that public decisions are heavily informed by the data, information, and analysis developed and communicated by scientists, lawyers, and members of the media. Yet each of these professions thinks about scientific uncertainty differently shaped in large part by their own internal ethical standards and professional norms.