Uncertainty-Reaction paper #2

Life itself is full of uncertainty. Kramer (2004) suggests, “We may experience uncertainty due to lack of information, due to the complexity of the information, or due to questions about the quality of the information” (pp. 8-9). His approach to uncertainty is focused on the availability of the information.
According to Ulmer, Sellnow, and Seeger (2007), ethical and unethical ambiguity are defined as follows.
Ambiguity is ethical when it contributes to the complete understanding of an issue by posing alternative views that are based on complete and unbiased data that aim to inform. Ambiguity is unethical if it poses alternative interpretations using biased or incomplete information that aims to deceive. (p. 24)
Above definitions whether the ambiguity in crisis situations is ethical or unethical are also closely related to the possibility of acquiring the complete and objective data.
Complete data decide the public’s trust in crisis situation. This is the reason of the importance of complete data in crisis. The following example in Korea shows how the trustful information moves public’s mind in crisis.
In February 2004, Dr. Woosuk Hwang, a South Korean veterinary medical researcher and professor at Seoul National University, began receiving his country’s attention and adulation. He became an international celebrity when he announced in the leading scientific journal, Science, that he had cloned human embryos. However, on November 22, 2005, PD Notebook, an investigative documentary program on South Korea’s Munhwa Broadcasting Company (MBC), one of the nation’s three major broadcasters, exposed the egg sale, which was unknown and unethical, for the first time. On December 4, YTN, an all-news cable channel, revealed an interview with the feeder cell expert, Sonjong Kim, one of Hwang’s former colleagues. Kim claimed that MBC coerced him into providing information revealing that Hwang’s stem cell exploits were fraudulent. That night, MBC’s main news program, News Desk 9, apologized for the unethical conduct of the producers of PD Notebook. It admitted that the producers of that program used coercion, manipulation, and hidden cameras in order to secure recorded interviews unfavorable to Dr. Hwang. Angered by MBC’s immoral coverage of the issue, about 12,000 South Korean netizens signed an Internet petition calling for the shutdown of the broadcasting company. This was a considerable crisis for MBC. On December 7, MBC decided to put the production of PD Notebook on indefinite hold. At this point, public’s trust in Dr. Hwang was still very strong.
During this chaotic period, on December 15 MBC’s PD Notebook aired a follow-up program questioning the authenticity of Dr. Hwang’s research. The producer uncovered that the DNA of several stem cells received from Hwang’s team did not match those of the individual patients from whom they were supposedly derived. On January 10, 2006, according to a report released by a Seoul National University panel investigating his work, Dr. Hwang’s stem cell study was revealed to be a fabrication. On March 6, Dr. Hwang confessed that he had instructed the researchers to fabricate the medical treatment related to the article published in Science.
In the above case, public’s trust started from the respect for Dr. Hwang because of his research in the journal, Science. In the mean time, public did not trust PD Notebook’s investigation about Dr. Hwang’s research because public did not regard the broadcasting program is professional in figuring out the truthfulness about the scientific research. However, eventually, a report released by a Seoul National University panel also revealed that his research is a fabrication, and South Korea’s national pride for Dr. Hwang turned into anger and embarrassment because of his fabricated research. In this crisis case, the complete and trustful data played the most significant role in moving public’s evaluation or judge.