Abstract

This chapter articulates some epistemological and ethical dilemmas in science communication. The first dilemma is faced by science reporters such as journalists. It arises from a tension between two objectives: reporting the most reliable information while at the same time giving a balanced presentation of different perspectives. The second dilemma is faced by scientific expert testifiers, and arises when they engage in scientific expert trespassing testimony. Trespassing testimony—testifying outside of one’s domain of expertise—is usually epistemically problematic. However, it can also be epistemically good. As a result, scientists may face a dilemma as to whether and how to testify. The chapter provides partial resolution strategies for both kinds of dilemma, but suggests that even so residual hard dilemmas will persist. Consequently, it articulates a general unifying solution-strategy, which consists of a general norm of public scientific testimony.