Ethics in Science Storytelling

In science communication, we often simplify to make things more accessible and stories more relatable. Storytelling, however, also shapes how science is understood. And in conservation, framing species as heroes or villains comes with the risk of oversimplification. Plants, animals, and ecosystems are not morally responsible for their actions. They do not operate within human-constructed moral frameworks. While hero-villain narratives may make stories easier to grasp, they can also apply an inappropriate moral lens to nature and misrepresent the multidimensional roles species play. Real ecosystems do not have clear-cut heroes or villains. They are complex, dynamic systems in which species’ roles shift across time and space. For instance, a species described as harmful in one context, may play a stabilizing role in another. Without careful framing, audiences can internalize certain species as inherently bad, and that perception can influence how those species are treated. Science communication does not need to turn species into heroes or villains to be engaging. There are alternative narrative structures that can still spark curiosity without oversimplifying complexity. 🔗 https://lnkd.in/eWDH-J34 #storytelling ✒️ #SciComm 🔬

Climate storytelling is having a moment. But without ethics, it becomes extraction. Across climate policy, medicine, public health, and AI, stories are being turned into evidence, strategy, curriculum, data, and public record. That shift is overdue. But it is not ethically neutral. Stories are not raw material to be extracted from people because someone needs a more compelling frame, a fresher angle, a teaching example, or a human-centered way to make a policy point. Climate stories are shaped by trust, deep listening, reciprocity, and context. In the current political environment, they often carry what people cannot safely say in public. That’s why the ethics of climate storytelling cannot be assumed, outsourced, or treated as an afterthought. When ethics are treated as optional, climate storytelling becomes a Wild West: a rush to collect people’s stories without consent, context, confidentiality, or responsibility. Communities have long and rightly challenged researchers, journalists, nonprofits, and institutions over who gets to collect their stories, who gets to interpret them, and who benefits from their circulation. If stories are going to be treated as climate evidence, then the ethics of collecting, interpreting, and sharing them must be clear, visible, and built into the work. Climate stories matter. But without clear ethics, they can become extractive.

We’re constantly told to "let the data speak for itself." And nothing seems more objective than a crisp bar chart, a sleek line graph, or a vibrant scatter plot. They appear to be pure, unadulterated truth, direct from the numbers. But here’s the quiet secret: every single chart we create is a carefully constructed narrative, and we, the data practitioners, are its authors. Think about it. We choose the scale. We pick the colors. We decide what to include, and perhaps more importantly, what to exclude. A slight adjustment to the Y-axis can turn a flat line into a dramatic spike. A strategic choice of segmenting data can highlight a trend that barely exists. We can make a molehill look like a mountain, or a mountain disappear entirely, all with the click of a mouse. This isn't always malicious; often, it’s an unconscious bias or an attempt to simplify complexity. But it underscores a profound truth: data visualization is less about simply "showing" data and more about "telling a story" with data. And like any good storyteller, we have immense power to influence perception, to persuade, and yes, even to mislead. The real challenge, and the true mark of an ethical data professional, isn't just in making a chart look pretty. It's in ensuring that the story it tells is honest, transparent, and reflective of the underlying reality, even when that reality isn't what stakeholders want to hear. Because a picture might be worth a thousand words, but only if those words are true. Let’s chart with integrity. #TheInsightEdge #DataScience #DataVisualization #DataEthics

We teach scientists to avoid emotion. Now it’s costing us trust. In biotech, our breakthroughs are built on data, our decisions on evidence. Precision is paramount. Yet when it comes to public trust in our industry’s innovation, we often overlook one critical variable: Emotional intelligence. As scientists, we are trained to set it aside. This is why we sometimes fail. As a B2B marketer, I lead with data, yes, but our best campaigns are those that communicate emotion. Scientific communication usually prioritises accuracy over emotion, but today misinformation spreads faster than peer-review, and the model no longer works. Emotional resonance is not a soft skill; it’s a strategic asset. “Knowledge is only one factor among many influences that are likely to guide how individuals reach judgments.” (Bubela et al., 2009; Sturgis & Allum, 2004) Emotionally charged misinformation is significantly more likely to be shared than neutral, factual content, and conspiracy narratives consistently outperform scientific explanations in engagement metrics, largely due to their emotional appeal. This is a big problem for biotech: When public perception lags, or is completely out of step with, scientific progress, adoption stalls, reputations suffer, and innovation is left on the shelf. For biotech leaders, the implications are clear: If we want our science and innovations to be understood, trusted, and acted upon, we must communicate with emotional intelligence. That means reframing messaging around what the data say AND what the audience feels. Three principles can help: Narrative over numbers: Data don’t persuade, stories do. Storytelling activates neural coupling, allowing audiences to internalise complex information more effectively. Leaders must ensure their teams are trained not just in scientific literacy, but in narrative strategy. Humility over certainty: In an era of rapid discovery, acknowledging uncertainty builds credibility. Audiences are more likely to trust communicators who admit what they don’t know, rather than overstate what they do. Values over variables: Emotional intelligence enables us to connect scientific outcomes to human impact. Whether it’s a new therapy, diagnostic tool, or platform technology, the message must speak to what matters: Health, hope, and progress. Some worry about diluting science, but this approach amplifies its relevance. Emotional intelligence allows us to bridge the gap between innovation and adoption, between discovery and belief in the therapies of the future. Our communication must be as sophisticated as the science it supports. The most powerful message is not always the one that informs, it’s the one that connects. Like this: https://okt.to/QJaCtU

Too often in the non-profit sector, researchers, advocacy, and comms specialists replicate the same extractive practices we criticise in the media. Reading this article by Patrick Gathara, I couldn't help but think: if you swap out journalist for researcher, MEL or advocacy/media/comms roles, the critique still holds. Far too often, people's realities get treated as raw data to extract, interpret, and package for agendas they rarely control. We seen endless examples where an organisation's/funders proximity to a story, or a person's"technical expertise", makes them feel they have the right to tell it, without asking who really owns it. Storytelling is not neutral. Research is not neutral. Advocacy is not neutral. Thankfully, there are many, many orgs doing things differently. 1) Treat communities as authors, not subjects. 2) Resource people to tell their own stories, in their own languages, for their own purposes. 3) Really question the interpretation or validation process, reflecting on whose voices are present/not present at this stage. 4) Build storytelling/inquiry processes based on consent, collaboration, data sovereignty and shared control over what gets shared and how (this is why i love critical participatory action research ) 5) Understand that sometimes the most ethical choice is not to tell the story at all. If you have any examples, experiences of the above, please feel free to share in the comments. #nonprofits #socialimpact https://lnkd.in/gt4DZkZ3

What does “ethical science communication” actually mean and who is responsible for it? A landmark 2025 study by Clare Wilkinson and colleagues (Science Communication) offers new evidence on how ethics is being considered — or overlooked — in science communication and public engagement. • 43% response rate to interview invitations — suggesting significant time or cultural barriers to participating in conversations about ethics. • Most professionals interviewed were operating without formal ethical frameworks, relying instead on informal norms, instinct, and ad hoc decision-making. Common ethical challenges included: • Managing power asymmetries between researchers and communities Navigating extractive practices in engagement (e.g. unpaid community contributions) • Lack of clarity on when ethical review applies to comms/engagement Short-term funding cycles undermining trust and continuity • Practitioners are often expected to be ethical gatekeepers, without clear mandates, training, or institutional support.