Communicating Uncertain Science to the Public: How Amount and Source of Uncertainty Impact Fatalism, Backlash, and Overload.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Jensen JD
PROVIDER: S-EPMC5018910 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Jan
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Communicating Uncertain Science to the Public: How Amount and Source of Uncertainty Impact Fatalism, Backlash, and Overload.
Jensen Jakob D JD Pokharel Manusheela M Scherr Courtney L CL King Andy J AJ Brown Natasha N Jones Christina C
Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis 20160312 1
Public dissemination of scientific research often focuses on the finding (e.g., nanobombs kill lung cancer) rather than the uncertainty/limitations (e.g., in mice). Adults (n = 880) participated in an experiment where they read a manipulated news report about cancer research (a) that contained either low or high uncertainty (b) that was attributed to the scientists responsible for the research (disclosure condition) or an unaffiliated scientist (dueling condition). Compared to the dueling condit ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:Uncertainty is an inherent part of knowledge, and yet in an era of contested expertise, many shy away from openly communicating their uncertainty about what they know, fearful of their audience's reaction. But what effect does communication of such epistemic uncertainty have? Empirical research is widely scattered across many disciplines. This interdisciplinary review structures and summarizes current practice and research across domains, combining a statistical and psychological perspective. This informs a framework for uncertainty communication in which we identify three objects of uncertainty-facts, numbers and science-and two levels of uncertainty: direct and indirect. An examination of current practices provides a scale of nine expressions of direct uncertainty. We discuss attempts to codify indirect uncertainty in terms of quality of the underlying evidence. We review the limited literature about the effects of communicating epistemic uncertainty on cognition, affect, trust and decision-making. While there is some evidence that communicating epistemic uncertainty does not necessarily affect audiences negatively, impact can vary between individuals and communication formats. Case studies in economic statistics and climate change illustrate our framework in action. We conclude with advice to guide both communicators and future researchers in this important but so far rather neglected field.
| S-EPMC6549952 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Community science (also often referred to as citizen science) provides a unique opportunity to address questions beyond the scope of other research methods whilst simultaneously engaging communities in the scientific process. This leads to broad educational benefits, empowers people, and can increase public awareness of societally relevant issues such as the biodiversity crisis. As such, community science has become a favourable framework for researching alien species where data on the presence, absence, abundance, phenology, and impact of species is important in informing management decisions. However, uncertainties arising at different stages can limit the interpretation of data and lead to projects failing to achieve their intended outcomes. Focusing on alien species centered community science projects, we identified key research questions and the relevant uncertainties that arise during the process of developing the study design, for example, when collecting the data and during the statistical analyses. Additionally, we assessed uncertainties from a linguistic perspective, and how the communication stages among project coordinators, participants and other stakeholders can alter the way in which information may be interpreted. We discuss existing methods for reducing uncertainty and suggest further solutions to improve data reliability. Further, we make suggestions to reduce the uncertainties that emerge at each project step and provide guidance and recommendations that can be readily applied in practice. Reducing uncertainties is essential and necessary to strengthen the scientific and community outcomes of community science, which is of particular importance to ensure the success of projects aimed at detecting novel alien species and monitoring their dynamics across space and time.Supplementary informationThe online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s10530-022-02858-8.
| S-EPMC9579088 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Uncertainty is inherent to our knowledge about the state of the world yet often not communicated alongside scientific facts and numbers. In the "posttruth" era where facts are increasingly contested, a common assumption is that communicating uncertainty will reduce public trust. However, a lack of systematic research makes it difficult to evaluate such claims. We conducted five experiments-including one preregistered replication with a national sample and one field experiment on the BBC News website (total n = 5,780)-to examine whether communicating epistemic uncertainty about facts across different topics (e.g., global warming, immigration), formats (verbal vs. numeric), and magnitudes (high vs. low) influences public trust. Results show that whereas people do perceive greater uncertainty when it is communicated, we observed only a small decrease in trust in numbers and trustworthiness of the source, and mostly for verbal uncertainty communication. These results could help reassure all communicators of facts and science that they can be more open and transparent about the limits of human knowledge.
| S-EPMC7149229 | biostudies-literature
Project description:All science has uncertainty. Unless that uncertainty is communicated effectively, decision makers may put too much or too little faith in it. The information that needs to be communicated depends on the decisions that people face. Are they (i) looking for a signal (e.g., whether to evacuate before a hurricane), (ii) choosing among fixed options (e.g., which medical treatment is best), or (iii) learning to create options (e.g., how to regulate nanotechnology)? We examine these three classes of decisions in terms of how to characterize, assess, and convey the uncertainties relevant to each. We then offer a protocol for summarizing the many possible sources of uncertainty in standard terms, designed to impose a minimal burden on scientists, while gradually educating those whose decisions depend on their work. Its goals are better decisions, better science, and better support for science.
| S-EPMC4183175 | biostudies-other
Project description:While mathematical models of disease transmission are widely used to inform public health decision-makers globally, the uncertainty inherent in results are often poorly communicated. We outline some potential sources of uncertainty in epidemic models, present traditional methods used to illustrate uncertainty and discuss alternative presentation formats used by modelling groups throughout the COVID-19 pandemic. Then, by drawing on the experience of our own recent modelling, we seek to contribute to the ongoing discussion of how to improve upon traditional methods used to visualise uncertainty by providing a suggestion of how this can be presented in a clear and simple manner.
| S-EPMC8562068 | biostudies-literature
Project description:This essay examines the societal dynamics surrounding modern science. It first discusses a number of challenges facing any effort to communicate science in social environments: lay publics with varying levels of preparedness for fully understanding new scientific breakthroughs; the deterioration of traditional media infrastructures; and an increasingly complex set of emerging technologies that are surrounded by a host of ethical, legal, and social considerations. Based on this overview, I discuss four areas in which empirical social science helps clarify intuitive but sometimes faulty assumptions about the social-level mechanisms of science communication and outline an agenda for bench and social scientists--driven by current social-scientific research in the field of science communication--to guide more effective communication efforts at the societal level in the future.
| S-EPMC3752169 | biostudies-other
Project description:BackgroundUncertainty is integral to evidence-informed decision making and is of particular importance for preference-sensitive decisions. Communicating uncertainty to patients and the public has long been identified as a goal in the informed and shared decision-making movement. Despite this, there is little quantitative research on how uncertainty in health information is perceived by readers.ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to examine the impact of different uncertainty descriptions regarding the evidence for a treatment effect in a written research summary for the public.MethodsWe developed 8 versions of a research summary on a fictitious drug for tinnitus with varying degrees (Q1), sources (Q2), and magnitudes of uncertainty (Q3). We recruited 2099 members of the German public from a web-based research panel. Of these, 1727 fulfilled the inclusion criteria and were randomly presented with one of these research summaries. Randomization was conducted by using a centralized computer with a random number generator. Web-based recruitment and data collection were fully automated. Participants were not aware of the purpose of the study and alternative presentations. We measured the following outcomes: perception of the treatment effectiveness (primary), certainty in the judgement of treatment effectiveness, perception of the body of evidence, text quality, and intended decision. The outcomes were self-assessed.ResultsFor the primary outcome, we did not find a global effect for Q1 and Q2 (P=.25 and P=.73), but we found a global effect for Q3 (P=.048). Pairwise comparisons showed a weaker perception of treatment effectiveness for the research summary with 3 sources of uncertainty compared to the version with 2 sources of uncertainty (P=.04). Specifically, the proportion of the participants in the group with 3 sources of uncertainty that perceived the drug as possibly beneficial was 9% lower than that of the participants in the group with 2 sources of uncertainty (92/195, 47.2% vs 111/197, 56.3%, respectively). The proportion of the participants in the group with 3 sources of uncertainty that considered the drug to be of unclear benefit was 8% higher than that of the participants in the group with 2 sources of uncertainty (72/195, 36.9% vs 57/197, 28.9%, respectively). However, there was no significant difference compared to the version with 1 source of uncertainty (P=.31). We did not find any meaningful differences between the research summaries for the secondary outcomes.ConclusionsCommunicating even a large magnitude of uncertainty for a treatment effect had little impact on the perceived effectiveness. Efforts to improve public understanding of research are needed to improve the understanding of evidence-based health information.Trial registrationGerman Clinical Trials Register DRKS00015911, https://www.drks.de/drks_web/navigate.do?navigationId=trial.HTML&TRIAL_ID=DRKS00015911.International registered report identifier (irrid)RR2-10.2196/13425.
| S-EPMC7445603 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Given the public interest in epigenetic science, this study aimed to better understand media representations of epigenetics in national newspaper coverage in various regions in North America, Europe, and Asia. Content analysis was used to study media messages about epigenetics, their policy focus, and the balance of the reporting. We identified several recurring themes in the news reports, including policy messages relating to individual and societal responsibilities. We also found shortcomings in the media's portrayal of epigenetic science, and sought to identify potential causes by considering the underlying scientific evidence that the media reported on. A case study analysis showed that the results of epigenetic studies were often overstated in academic research publications due to common experimental limitations. We suggest that defining standardized criteria with which to evaluate epigenetic studies could help to overcome some of the challenges inherent in translating complex epigenetic research findings for non-technical audiences, and present a Press Kit template that researchers can adapt and use to aid in the development of accurate and balanced press releases.
| S-EPMC7673471 | biostudies-literature
Project description:While scientific uncertainty always invites the risk of politicization and raises questions of how to communicate about science, this risk is magnified for COVID-19. The limited data and accelerated research timelines mean that some prominent models or findings inevitably will be overturned or retracted. In this research, we examine the attitudes of more than 6000 Americans across five different survey experiments to understand how the cue giver and cue given about scientific uncertainty regarding COVID-19 affect public trust in science and support for science-based policy. Criticism from Democratic political elites undermines trust more than criticism from Republicans. Emphasizing uncertainty in projections can erode public trust in some contexts. Downplaying uncertainty can raise support in the short term, but reversals in projections may temper these effects or even reduce scientific trust. Careful science communication is critical to maintaining public support for science-based policies as the scientific consensus shifts over time.
| S-EPMC7577608 | biostudies-literature
Project description:In this paper I describe how a narrative approach to science communication may help audiences to more fully understand how science is relevant to their own lives and behaviors. The use of prescriptive scientific narrative can help to overcome challenges specific to scientific concepts, especially the need to reconsider long-held beliefs in the face of new empirical findings. Narrative can captivate the audience, driving anticipation for plot resolution, thus becoming a self-motivating vehicle for information delivery. This quality gives narrative considerable power to explain complex phenomena and causal processes, and to create and reinforce memory traces for better recall and application over time. Because of the inherent properties of narrative communication, their creators have a special responsibility to ensure even-handedness in selection and presentation of the scientific evidence. The recent transformation in communication and information technology has brought about new platforms for delivering content, particularly through interactivity, which can use structured self-tailoring to help individuals most efficiently get exactly the content that they need. As with all educational efforts, prescriptive scientific narratives must be evaluated systematically to determine whether they have the desired effects in improving understanding and changing behavior.
| S-EPMC4183172 | biostudies-other