Communicating scientific uncertainty

Abstract

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. Scientific research can reduce both kinds of uncertainty. Research directed at clarifying facts can provide imperfect answers to questions such as how well an oil pipeline will be maintained and monitored, how long the recovery period will be after bariatric surgery, and how much protection bicycle helmets afford. Research directed at clarifying values can provide imperfect answers to questions such as which charitable contributions give donors the greatest satisfaction, what happens when people commit to long-term goals, how much pleasure people can expect from windfalls (e.g., lottery winnings) and how much pain from misfortunes (e.g., severe accidents) (1, 2).Taking full advantage of scientific research requires knowing how much uncertainty surrounds it. Decision makers who place too much confidence in science can face unexpected problems, not realizing how wary they should have been. Decision makers who place too little confidence in science can miss opportunities, while wasting time and resources gathering information with no practical value. As a result, conveying uncertainty is essential to science communication.

Development and Validation of the Scientific Reasoning Scale

“…We then considered item difficulty, item–total correlations, and internal reliability coefficients to eliminate eight items. These analyses led us to eliminate items corresponding to four concepts drawn from Funtowicz and Ravetz (; as interpreted by Fischhoff and Davis, ) and designed to test the ability to assess the strength of a body of scientific evidence. These items appeared to be distinct from the other 16 items, displaying low item–total correlations, and low inter‐item correlations with the other 16 items.…”

“…We grouped similar concepts and sought general versions of specific concepts. We then added concepts from two prominent methodologies for assessing the quality and validity of scientific research, those published by the Cochrane Group (and endorsed by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality) (Barkhordarian et al, ) and the Numeral Unit Spread Assessment Pedigree criteria for evaluating the strength of sciences (Funtowicz & Ravetz, ; see also Fischhoff & Davis, ). The resulting list, displayed in Table , had 20 concepts.…”

A method to evaluate the usability of interactive climate change impact decision aids

“…A second possible explanation is that in the context of more specific decisions time period had cancelling effects, with the longer period revealing greater risks but also seeming more distant. These determinants of concern and action bear further attention, as do others, such as uncertainty about the estimates (Fischhoff and Davis 2014). In terms of usability, though, the three time horizons were equally effective and showed no evidence of framing effects.…”

Empirical prediction intervals improve energy forecasting

“…When assessed retrospectively, such energy projections have sometimes shown very large deviations from the realized values (7)(8)(9). Providing information on the likely uncertainty associated with such projections would help individuals and organizations use them in a more informed manner (10)(11)(12).…”