One of the problems of science and technology policy is the entanglement of normative and factual questions. Empirical sciences identify social problems (climate change, antibiotic resistance, etc.) and develop ways to overcome them (vaccinations, risk assessments, etc.). However, they cannot answer normative questions just on the basis of empirical facts. One goal of science communication is to enable political actors to make informed decisions about science and technology. It also has to consider normative aspects, which are also called moralizations. 

I present the philosophical contribution to a research project that dedicated to forms, causes, and effects of moralizations in science communication. An interdisciplinary team of researchers from linguistics, communication studies and philosophy investigates moralizations in public debates on food security, artificial intelligence and energy security. At ESDiT I will shed light on the methodology and first results of a case study on genetic engineering in agriculture we are currently working on in the philosophy team.

In this study, we first identify the relevant stakeholders of the debate that is a part of the realm of food security, like farmers’ federations or the government nature conservation agency. We compile a body of texts that represent the stakeholders’ perspectives regarding genetic engineering in agriculture. Based on preliminary work of the linguistics team, we establish a systematic analysis of expressions with normative significance in this particular debate. Our aim is to construct a descriptive taxonomy that differentiates various forms of moralization. 

On the basis of the taxonomy we conduct a normative analysis that is founded in philosophical accounts on moralizations to discern legitimate from illegitimate forms. Thereby, we respond to the desideratum in philosophy to research specific issues where moralizations occur. The result of our analysis determines criteria for the identification of legitimate and illegitimate forms of moralizations in debates about moral problems in science and technology. 

The results of the other disciplinary teams combined with the criteria for identifying legitimate and illegitimate forms of moralizations will constitute the foundation for guidelines for effective and responsible science communication for practitioners in that field, for example journalists or scientists.