Karoliina Pulkkinen’s research while affiliated with University of Helsinki and other places

Science communication is an important part of research, including in the geosciences, as it can (1) benefit both society and science and (2) make science more publicly accountable. However, much of this work takes place in “shadowlands” that are neither fully seen nor understood. These shadowlands are spaces, aspects, and practices of science communication that are not clearly defined and may be harmful with respect to the science being communicated or for the science communicators themselves. With the increasing expectation in academia that researchers should participate in science communication, there is a need to address some of the major issues that lurk in these shadowlands. Here, the editorial team of Geoscience Communication seeks to shine a light on the shadowlands of geoscience communication by geoscientists in academia and suggest some solutions and examples of effective practice. The issues broadly fall under three categories: (1) harmful or unclear objectives, (2) poor quality and lack of rigor, and (3) exploitation of science communicators working within academia. Ameliorating these problems will require the following action: (1) clarifying objectives and audiences, (2) adequately training science communicators, and (3) giving science communication equivalent recognition to other professional activities. In this editorial, our aim is to cultivate a more transparent and responsible landscape for geoscience communication – a transformation that will ultimately benefit the progress of science; the welfare of scientists; and, more broadly, society at large.

Science communication is an important part of research, including in the geosciences, as it can benefit society, science, and make science more publicly accountable. However, much of this work takes place in “shadowlands” that are neither fully seen nor understood. These shadowlands are spaces, aspects, and practices of science communication which are not clearly defined and may be harmful with respect to the science being communicated or for the science communicators themselves. With the increasing expectation in academia that researchers should participate in science communication, there is a need to address some of the major issues that lurk in these shadowlands. Here the editorial team of Geoscience Communication seeks to shine a light on the shadowlands of geoscience communication and suggest some solutions and examples of effective practice. The issues broadly fall under three categories: 1) harmful or unclear objectives; 2) poor quality and lack of rigor; and 3) exploitation of science communicators working within academia. Ameliorating these will require: 1) clarifying objectives and audiences; 2) adequately training science communicators; and 3) giving science communication equivalent recognition to other professional activities. By shining a light on the shadowlands of science communication in academia and proposing potential remedies, our aim is to cultivate a more transparent and responsible landscape for geoscience communication—a transformation that will ultimately benefit the progress of science, the welfare of scientists, and more broadly society at large.

There is much debate on how social values should influence scientific research. However, the question of practical applicability of philosophers’ normative proposals has received less attention. Here, we test the attainability of Matthew J. Brown’s (2020) Moral Imagination ideal (MI ideal), which aims to help scientists to make warranted value-judgements through reflecting on goals, options, values, and stakeholders of research. Here, the tools of the MI ideal are applied to a climate modelling setting, where researchers are developing aerosol-cloud interaction (ACI) parametrizations in an Earth System Model with the broader goal of improving climate sensitivity estimation. After the identification of minor obstacles to applying the MI ideal, we propose two ways to increase its applicability. First, its tools should be accompanied with more concrete guidance for identifying how social values enter more technical decisions in scientific research. Second, since research projects can have multiple goals, examining the alignment between broader societal aims of research and more technical goals should be part of the tools of the MI ideal.

Philosophers argue that many choices in science are influenced by values or have value-implications, ranging from the preference for some research method’s qualities to ethical estimation of the consequences of error. Based on the argument that awareness of values in the scientific process is a necessary first step to both avoid bias and attune science best to the needs of society, an analysis of the role of values in the physical climate science production process is provided. Model-based assessment of climate sensitivity is taken as an illustrative example; climate sensitivity is useful here because of its key role in climate science and relevance for policy, by having been the subject of several assessments over the past decades including a recent shift in assessment method, and because it enables insights that apply to numerous other aspects of climate science. It is found that value-judgements are relevant at every step of the model-based assessment process, with a differentiated role of non-epistemic values across the steps, impacting the assessment in various ways. Scrutiny of current philosophical norms for value-management highlights the need for those norms to be re-worked for broader applicability to climate science. Recent development in climate science turning away from direct use of models for climate sensitivity assessment also gives the opportunity to start investigating the role of values in alternative assessment methods, highlighting similarities and differences in terms of the role of values that encourage further study.

To date, values are not widely acknowledged or discussed within physical climate science. Yet, effective management of values in physical climate science is required for the benefit of both science and society.

Much has been said about the accuracy of the famous predictions of the Russian chemist Dmitrii Ivanovich Mendeleev, but far less has been written on how he made his predictions. Here we offer an explanation on how Mendeleev used his periodic system to predict both physical and chemical properties of little-known and entirely unknown chemical elements. We argue that there seems to be compelling evidence in favour of Mendeleev genuinely relying on his periodic system in the course of issuing his predictions—a point recently contested by Woody (in: Soler, Zwart, Lynch, Israel-Jost (eds) Science after the practice turn in the philosophy, history, and social studies of science, Routledge, Abington, 2014). In particular, by using the known properties of a number of near neighbours of the three entirely unknown elements (the so-called eka-elements), we seek to show how the very format of his table enabled it to function as a powerful tool for Mendeleev in arriving at his predicted values. We suggest that Mendeleev’s use of the periodic system in making his prediction gives an illuminative example of what Woody calls “theoretical practices” in science.

Julius Lothar Meyer, John Newlands, and Dmitrii Mendeleev were amongst the discoverers of the periodic system of the elements. Although their systems are similar enough to be recognised as the precursors for the modern periodic system, they were also different. Here, I argue that many of their differences can be explained in terms of how the chemists emphasised different values in the process of developing their systems. In particular, Newland highlighted the simplicity of his arrangements; Meyer was more careful about the quality of data that gave rise to his system of elements; and Mendeleev sought to make his system more complete. By shedding light as to how the values of simplicity, completeness and carefulness guided the development of early periodic systems, this paper contributes to a broader understanding of how values influence science.

This article focuses on the Russian chemist Dmitri Ivanovich Mendeleev's assessment of certain representations of various aspects of the periodic system that employed more mathematical methodology. The equations of interest were created by E. J. Mills, B. N. Chicherin, and J. H. Vincent. The English chemist Mills tried to find a firmer numerical basis for the periodicity of the elements. The Russian lawyer and political philosopher Chicherin was convinced of the existence of a mathematical law underlying the periodic system. The English physicist Vincent explored the connection between atomic weights and the elements' order in listings based on atomic weights—a project which he associated with the periodic system of elements. Although, for Mendeleev, the equations of Mills, Chicherin, and Vincent promised a more precise expression of the law of periodicity, he continued to invoke his earlier standards. In particular, Mendeleev wanted the equations to respect the individuality of the elements, and called for completeness in conveying the complexities of chemical phenomena. Thus, the very qualities that he had valued while developing his periodic system in 1869–1871 also characterised his evaluation of the new means of representing aspects of that system.

Dmitrii Mendeleev’s periodic system is known for its predictive accuracy, but talk of its completeness is rarer. This is surprising because completeness ( polnost ’) was a quality that Mendeleev saw as important for a systematization of the chemical elements. Here, I explain how Mendeleev’s valuing of completeness influenced the development of his periodic system. After introducing five indicators of its completeness, I zoom into one in particular: Mendeleev’s inclusion of a schematic row of oxides. I then show how it guided Mendeleev’s predictions of indium and ekaboron, which suggests that the valuing of completeness was instrumental for making predictions.