Awareness of Consequences
Considering the implications and societal impact of your research includes ensuring that any conclusions you draw are appropriately and accurately balanced. Consider the previous chapter Data Visualization, the guiding principles of making informed visualizations included not misleading readers and prioritizing conveying a clear message. These speak to being mindful of how your figures may be perceived and presenting your data ethically and responsibly.
Your responsibilities go beyond just making figures, they extend to the methods and inferences you draw. Learning how to communicate science is a key and invaluable skill. Siouxsie Wiles, is an award winning science communicator and is perhaps best known for stepping up during the pandemic giving us information about the virus and advice on how to beat it.
“I assumed it would be through my research by helping develop a new antibiotic. But through the pandemic, I’ve learned that I can have a huge impact globally by doing good science communication.”
Below is a case study in science (mis)communication.
Case study
Asthma carbon footprint ‘as big as eating meat’ is the headline of this news story published on the BBC website. The article is based research outlined in this published paper which in turn cites this paper for an estimate of the carbon footprint reduced by an individual not eating meat.
It is not unreasonable to assume that many people would interpret this to mean that the total global carbon footprint due to eating meat is equal to the total carbon footprint due to the use of asthma inhalers. However, this is not what they mean. They mean that an individual deciding not to eat meat reduces their carbon footprint as much as an asthmatic individual deciding not to use an inhaler.
There are far more meat consumers compared to inhaler users and so the overall carbon footprint associated with meat consumption is much greater. However, the claim that not eating meat reduces someone’s carbon footprint about the same amount as not using inhalers is questionable. Yet, both the BBC article and the paper make this claim.
“And at the individual level, each metered-dose inhaler replaced by a dry powder inhaler could save the equivalent of between 150kg and 400kg (63 stone) of carbon dioxide a year - similar to the carbon footprint reduction of cutting meat from your diet.”
“Changing one MDI device to a DPI could save 150–400 kg CO2 annually; roughly equivalent to installing wall insulation at home, recycling or cutting out meat.”
Now, the the carbon footprint of eating meat is estimated as 300–1600 kg CO2 annually by this paper (see Table 1). And so the two claims don’t really match up. Moreover, what is being suggested by the article? That should asthmatics should think about ceasing their medication in the same way many people are trying to reduce meat consumption?!?
In this section we’ve discussed how ethical data practice involves accuracy, respect, and clear communication. There is one other component that should be considered here and that is consequence. The two options in this case study are not balanced because they have very different consequences:
- Not eating meat is (possibly) good for you and is also good for the planet, but
- Not taking your inhaler is (probably) much worse for your health.
TASK Watch this lecture Algorithmic fairness: Examples from predictive models for criminal justice and summarise the key points made. Can you think of a recent story that highlights the issues raised?