National Academies Press: OpenBook
« Previous: 8 Evaluating Science Communication
Suggested Citation:"9 Communicating Uncertainty." National Academy of Sciences. 2018. The Science of Science Communication III: Inspiring Novel Collaborations and Building Capacity: Proceedings of a Colloquium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24958.
×

9

Communicating Uncertainty

Image

Communicating uncertainty is one of the biggest challenges journalists face, said Laura Helmuth, national editor of health, science, and environment at The Washington Post, who moderated the session at the colloquium on uncertainty in science communication. Uncertainty is hard to explain and understand. Journalists typically have so much to explain in their stories that they can be tempted to leave uncertainty out. “You have to pick your explanatory battles, and this is a battle that we often put off,” said Helmuth.

But journalists are getting better at it, she added. They are becoming more aware of how uncertainty can be misused, as was the case when the tobacco industry argued that the health effects of smoking were uncertain. They have learned to avoid the trap of false balance, so as not to overstate

Suggested Citation:"9 Communicating Uncertainty." National Academy of Sciences. 2018. The Science of Science Communication III: Inspiring Novel Collaborations and Building Capacity: Proceedings of a Colloquium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24958.
×

the uncertainty that exists. “We’re getting better at covering uncertainty as a subject in an interesting way,” said Helmuth.

PREDICTIONS WITHOUT MEASURES OF UNCERTAINTY

Scientific evaluations of public policies should explicitly express the limits to knowledge. However, policy analysis “with what I call incredible certitude has been common,” said Charles Manski, Board of Trustees Professor of economics in the Department of Economics at Northwestern University. The predictions that researchers make are often fragile, resting on unsupported assumptions and limited data (Manski, 2013), but economists and other social scientists tend to make exact predictions of policy outcomes while rarely expressing uncertainty. “It’s not that they’re fraudulent,” said Manski. “It’s that you assume more than you have the basis to assume using the data that you have.”

Good examples, he observed, are the predictions, known as scores, made by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) of the budgetary implications of pending federal legislation. The impacts of new legislation are difficult to foresee, yet the CBO makes 10-year point predictions, with no quantitative measure of uncertainty. Similarly, official statistics from federal agencies, such as the gross domestic product growth rate or the poverty rate, suffer from various kinds of errors, yet agencies typically report only point estimates.

Some agencies do aim to communicate uncertainty transparently. A notable case is the National Weather Service, which in a tweet issued on August 27, 2017, as rainfall from Hurricane Harvey was beginning to inundate Southeast Texas, said, “This event is unprecedented & all impacts are unknown & beyond anything experienced.”

Manski listed several manifestations of incredible certitude. One is conventional certitude, which he described as statistics or estimates that are accepted as true by society but may not be true. Dueling certitudes are contradictory predictions made with alternative assumptions, as when analysts draw opposite conclusions about such issues as illegal drug policies. Conflating science and advocacy is when analysis aims to generate a predetermined conclusion, as with the practice of “model shopping,” where advocates for a particular position go looking for a model that supports their views. Wishful extrapolation is using untenable assumptions to extend a conclusion in a desired direction, as when limited studies of drug outcomes are used to predict what will happen in clinical practice. Illogical certitudes draw unfounded conclusions based on deductive errors, as with research that misinterprets the heritability of personal traits. Finally, media overreach is when journalists do premature or exaggerated reporting of policy analysis.

Suggested Citation:"9 Communicating Uncertainty." National Academy of Sciences. 2018. The Science of Science Communication III: Inspiring Novel Collaborations and Building Capacity: Proceedings of a Colloquium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24958.
×

THE RISKS OF IGNORING UNCERTAINTY

Why do researchers express certainty when they should be expressing uncertainty? Manski pointed to two reasons. The first is that the scientific community tends to reward strong and novel findings. The second is that the public wants unequivocal policy recommendations. Analysts at the CBO, for instance, know that their point estimates should be accompanied by ranges of uncertainty. But they may believe, Manski speculated, that the members of the U.S. Congress are psychologically or cognitively unable to deal with uncertainty. (Although, he added, such estimates in the United Kingdom do include uncertainty.) Or they may believe, because the CBO has established an admirable reputation for impartiality, that it is best to leave well enough alone and have the CBO express certitude when it scores legislation, even if the certitude is conventional rather than credible.

The problem with this approach, said Manski, is that the existing social contract to take CBO scores at face value could eventually break down. Maintaining trust may require expressing uncertainty. “Once you accept incredible certitude and take numbers at face value when they shouldn’t be, there may be a slippery slope from incredible certitude to utter disregard for truth. I do not think this is a second-order issue. In fact, it may be even more important to face up to uncertainty today than in the past.”

Suggested Citation:"9 Communicating Uncertainty." National Academy of Sciences. 2018. The Science of Science Communication III: Inspiring Novel Collaborations and Building Capacity: Proceedings of a Colloquium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24958.
×
Suggested Citation:"9 Communicating Uncertainty." National Academy of Sciences. 2018. The Science of Science Communication III: Inspiring Novel Collaborations and Building Capacity: Proceedings of a Colloquium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24958.
×
Suggested Citation:"9 Communicating Uncertainty." National Academy of Sciences. 2018. The Science of Science Communication III: Inspiring Novel Collaborations and Building Capacity: Proceedings of a Colloquium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24958.
×

This page intentionally left blank.

Suggested Citation:"9 Communicating Uncertainty." National Academy of Sciences. 2018. The Science of Science Communication III: Inspiring Novel Collaborations and Building Capacity: Proceedings of a Colloquium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24958.
×
Page 61
Suggested Citation:"9 Communicating Uncertainty." National Academy of Sciences. 2018. The Science of Science Communication III: Inspiring Novel Collaborations and Building Capacity: Proceedings of a Colloquium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24958.
×
Page 62
Suggested Citation:"9 Communicating Uncertainty." National Academy of Sciences. 2018. The Science of Science Communication III: Inspiring Novel Collaborations and Building Capacity: Proceedings of a Colloquium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24958.
×
Page 63
Suggested Citation:"9 Communicating Uncertainty." National Academy of Sciences. 2018. The Science of Science Communication III: Inspiring Novel Collaborations and Building Capacity: Proceedings of a Colloquium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24958.
×
Page 64
Suggested Citation:"9 Communicating Uncertainty." National Academy of Sciences. 2018. The Science of Science Communication III: Inspiring Novel Collaborations and Building Capacity: Proceedings of a Colloquium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24958.
×
Page 65
Suggested Citation:"9 Communicating Uncertainty." National Academy of Sciences. 2018. The Science of Science Communication III: Inspiring Novel Collaborations and Building Capacity: Proceedings of a Colloquium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24958.
×
Page 66
Next: 10 The Role of Philanthropy in Science Communication »
The Science of Science Communication III: Inspiring Novel Collaborations and Building Capacity: Proceedings of a Colloquium Get This Book
×
Buy Paperback | $45.00 Buy Ebook | $36.99
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

Successful scientists must be effective communicators within their professions. Without those skills, they could not write papers and funding proposals, give talks and field questions, or teach classes and mentor students. However, communicating with audiences outside their profession - people who may not share scientists' interests, technical background, cultural assumptions, and modes of expression - presents different challenges and requires additional skills. Communication about science in political or social settings differs from discourse within a scientific discipline. Not only are scientists just one of many stakeholders vying for access to the public agenda, but the political debates surrounding science and its applications may sometimes confront scientists with unfamiliar and uncomfortable discussions involving religious values, partisan interests, and even the trustworthiness of science.

The Science of Science Communication III: Inspiring Novel Collaborations and Building Capacity summarizes the presentations and discussions from a Sackler Colloquium convened in November 2017. This event used Communicating Science Effectively as a framework for examining how one might apply its lessons to research and practice. It considered opportunities for creating and applying the science along with the barriers to doing so, such as the incentive systems in academic institutions and the perils of communicating science in polarized environments. Special attention was given to the organization and infrastructure necessary for building capacity in science communication.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    Switch between the Original Pages, where you can read the report as it appeared in print, and Text Pages for the web version, where you can highlight and search the text.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  9. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!