Abstract
Why do people increasingly reject science in favor of subjective opinion? This well-known trend, most recently embodied as “fake news”, has both put lives at risk (through the increasing support for the anti-vaccine movement) and delayed the necessary global adoption of green energy (through so-called climate change skepticism). In this article, I show how rejection of science is often linked to a particular type of new knowledge, one where scientific advice does not grant us local, immediate gains. I also investigate societal megatrends that underlie such skepticism: the growth of social media, the rapid pace of headline news, and the enormous expansion of science itself. Finally, I discuss a way to combat “fake news” and its related phenomena, through more dedicated science communication. “Strength and guidance” is a good slogan for the disseminators of today and tomorrow; strength because the core messages from science need to be ever repeated in a world hungry for sensations, and guidance because the world has grown so complex that bare facts are no longer sufficient. Science communicators need to step out of their comfort zone and give actual, science-based advice – and still refrain from crossing the fine line between objectivity and activism.
Highlights
Interessekonflikter i forskning interest is a set of conditions in which professional judgment concerning a primary interest [...] tends to be unduly influenced by a secondary interest» (Thompson, 1993: 573)
Fordi forskningens integritet settes på spill, har identifisering og håndtering av slike konfliktsituasjoner vært en av forskningsetikkens mest sentrale oppgaver
In this chapter we look at statements in selected texts from articles, reports and the media which can be linked to uncertainty and quality in research related to the effects of salmon lice
Summary
Interessekonflikter i forskning interest is a set of conditions in which professional judgment concerning a primary interest [...] tends to be unduly influenced by a secondary interest» (Thompson, 1993: 573). Forskningsetiske retningslinjer for naturvitenskap og teknologi fremhever at det ved oppdragsforskning vanligvis er oppdragsgiver som bestemmer tema og problemstillinger i idéfasen, mens forskeren har ansvar for spørsmål knyttet til metode, datainnsamling og tolkning av resultater, og – mer overordnet – et ansvar for å sikre vitenskapelig kvalitet. Når det gjelder selve bruken av forskningsresultatene, fremhever forskningsetiske retningslinjer at forskere har et ansvar for å bidra med relevant kunnskap.11 Men forskning gir ikke nødvendigvis sikker kunnskap eller entydige svar.
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
