The ethics of communicating scientific uncertainty: Understanding how scientists, environmental lawyers, and reporters treat uncertainty

授予环境法研究所(ELI)的这一奖项支持在华盛顿特区举行的为期1.5天的多学科研讨会，科学家、律师和媒体专业人士将在研讨会上讨论如何根据各自领域的伦理标准处理和传达环境问题上的科学不确定性。特别是，气候学、天气预报、水力压裂和合成生物学等学科的处理不可避免地需要解释和解决不确定性。这个研讨会的目标有两个：(1)通过让参与者更好地了解他们的同行对科学不确定性采取的方法以及这些方法背后的伦理原因，促进更有效的跨学科交流；(2)通过确保人们了解负责传播科学不确定性的性质和重要性的科学、法律和媒体专业人员的专业限制，促进对重大环境问题的更透明和更具建设性的讨论。公共政策的重要问题往往涉及科学中不同程度的不确定性--例如，关于特定数据或趋势的含义，或关于缺乏数据的重要性。公共决策在很大程度上是由科学家、律师和媒体成员开发和传达的数据、信息和分析提供信息的。然而，这些职业对科学不确定性的看法不同，差异在很大程度上是由内部伦理标准形成的。这次研讨会以及Eli将发表的会议记录，可能有助于就有争议的公共政策问题进行更全面、更公平和更透明的讨论，在这些问题上，必须在面对科学不确定性的情况下做出决定。此外，在研讨会上，各种科学、法律和媒体参与者之间的信息传递将使他们能够在与其他专业的同行合作时获得新的理解。归根结底，长期目标是在受科学不确定性影响的重大公共政策问题上做出更好的决策。

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.