Abstract: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 condition, the disclo… Show more
“…This is not in the longterm interest of science, however. Indeed, contrary to common beliefs, reception studies show that the public views science as more trustworthy when the newspaper coverage of health research acknowledges its uncertainty, especially if this is attributed to scientific authors (J. D. Jensen et al, 2017;J. D. Jensen, Krakow, John, & Liu, 2013).…”
Newspapers preferentially cover initial biomedical findings although they are often disconfirmed by subsequent studies. We analyzed 426 newspaper articles covering 40 initial biomedical studies associating a risk factor with 12 pathologies and published between 1988 and 2009. Most articles presented the study as initial but only 21% mentioned that it must be confirmed by replication. Headlines of articles with a replication statement were hyped less often than those without. Replication statements have tended to disappear after 2000, whereas hyped headlines have become more frequent. Thus, the public is increasingly poorly informed about the uncertainty inherent in initial biomedical findings.
“…This is not in the longterm interest of science, however. Indeed, contrary to common beliefs, reception studies show that the public views science as more trustworthy when the newspaper coverage of health research acknowledges its uncertainty, especially if this is attributed to scientific authors (J. D. Jensen et al, 2017;J. D. Jensen, Krakow, John, & Liu, 2013).…”
Newspapers preferentially cover initial biomedical findings although they are often disconfirmed by subsequent studies. We analyzed 426 newspaper articles covering 40 initial biomedical studies associating a risk factor with 12 pathologies and published between 1988 and 2009. Most articles presented the study as initial but only 21% mentioned that it must be confirmed by replication. Headlines of articles with a replication statement were hyped less often than those without. Replication statements have tended to disappear after 2000, whereas hyped headlines have become more frequent. Thus, the public is increasingly poorly informed about the uncertainty inherent in initial biomedical findings.
“…Another study of cancer research hedging with similar stimuli and a college sample found hedging reduced cancer fatalism and resistance to dietary recommendations regardless of the source, while trust in medical professions increased only with hedging attributed to an unaffiliated researcher . A study using a noncollege adult convenience sample replicated the fatalism and nutritional backlash findings . One explanation of how expressed uncertainty can improve scientists’ credibility comes from focus groups: uncertainty is an integrative part of many of our participants’ model of science.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 86%
“…Based on the few relevant research findings and normative expectations in the literature, we propose several hypotheses. Findings to date about public reactions to ranges of risk estimates or hedging have been mixed on the effects of explicit quantitative or qualitative statements of uncertainty, respectively, on perceived honesty and competence of the source of such information, but certainly allow that: H1 .…”
We test here the risk communication proposition that explicit expert acknowledgment of uncertainty in risk estimates can enhance trust and other reactions. We manipulated such a scientific uncertainty message, accompanied by probabilities (20%, 70%, implicit ["will occur"] 100%) and time periods (10 or 30 years) in major (≥magnitude 8) earthquake risk estimates to test potential effects on residents potentially affected by seismic activity on the San Andreas fault in the San Francisco Bay Area (n = 750). The uncertainty acknowledgment increased belief that these specific experts were more honest and open, and led to statistically (but not substantively) significant increases in trust in seismic experts generally only for the 20% probability (vs. certainty) and shorter versus longer time period. The acknowledgment did not change judged risk, preparedness intentions, or mitigation policy support. Probability effects independent of the explicit admission of expert uncertainty were also insignificant except for judged risk, which rose or fell slightly depending upon the measure of judged risk used. Overall, both qualitative expressions of uncertainty and quantitative probabilities had limited effects on public reaction. These results imply that both theoretical arguments for positive effects, and practitioners' potential concerns for negative effects, of uncertainty expression may have been overblown. There may be good reasons to still acknowledge experts' uncertainties, but those merit separate justification and their own empirical tests.
“…Similarly, discourse‐based uncertainty expression (entire sentences describing limitations of studies) did not have a significant effect on the parameters studied by Jensen et al. (), namely fatalism, backlash and informational overload.…”
Section: Sources Of Evidence For the Guidancementioning
This document provides guidance for communicators on how to communicate the various expressions of uncertainty described in EFSA's document: ‘Guidance on uncertainty analysis in scientific assessments’. It also contains specific guidance for assessors on how best to report the various expressions of uncertainty. The document provides a template for identifying expressions of uncertainty in scientific assessments and locating the specific guidance for each expression. The guidance is structured according to EFSA's three broadly defined categories of target audience: ‘entry’, ‘informed’ and ‘technical’ levels. Communicators should use the guidance for entry and informed audiences, while assessors should use the guidance for the technical level. The guidance was formulated using evidence from the scientific literature, grey literature and two EFSA research studies, or based on judgement and reasoning where evidence was incomplete or missing. The limitations of the evidence sources inform the recommendations for further research on uncertainty communication.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
