Outcome of the Public Consultation on the draft Guidance on Communication of Uncertainty in Scientific Assessments

Abstract

The first strategic objective of EFSA's strategy 2020 'Trusted science for safe food' is the prioritisation of public and stakeholder engagement in the development of scientific assessment. To achieve this, objective public consultations are a key step for such a strategic framework. The draft Guidance document on communication of uncertainty underwent a web-based public consultation from 4 May to 24 June 2018. The document provides guidance for communicators on how to communicate the various expressions of uncertainty described in EFSA's 'Guidance on uncertainty analysis in scientific assessments'. It also contains specific guidance for assessors on how best to report the various expressions of uncertainty. Overall, EFSA received 212 comments from 24 interested parties including academia, national agencies, nongovernmental organisations and communicators. This report lists the individual comments received and explains in detail how the comments were taken into account during the finalisation process of the 'Guidance on communication of uncertainty in scientific assessments'. EFSA wishes to thank all the commenters for their valuable contributions.

Risk assessment of African swine fever in the south‐eastern countries of Europe

“…Subsequently, the experts of the working group estimated, by consensus, the likelihood of spread of ASF in the ROC within one year after possible introduction in the ROC, by evaluating all the indicators for all the countries of the ROC together. They also assessed the uncertainty of their assessment collectively according to EFSA's guidance on uncertainty in scientific assessments (EFSA, ). The following scale was used for the likelihood assessment: (Table ).…”

Development of adverse outcome pathways relevant for the identification of substances having endocrine disruption properties Uterine adenocarcinoma as adverse outcome

“…A dedicated protocol was elaborated (Viviani et al., 2023 – Annex A) to provide a plan detailing the strategy for the development of the postulated AOPs and AOP network. The protocol was based on EFSA (2020) and articulated in various phases some of which iterative. An overview of the phases is provided in Figure 2 and are summarised below: –definition of the scope of the assessment and identification of problem formulation questions (based on preliminary problem formulation set by the WG, see Section 1.2) and of initial postulated AOPs (conceptual model) (see Figure 1); –refinement of the structure of the postulated AOPs based on an iterative process; this consisted in (a) exploration of the available scientific literature and expert judgement for the identification of the most plausible MIEs/KEs/AOPs; (b) assessment of the biological plausibility of KERs and justification of the sequence and selection and inclusion of new KEs if needed; –definition of the final AOP structure; –prioritisation of KEs and KERs whose knowledge is less advanced and requires a structured, systematic and comprehensive approach in the evidence retrieval, appraisal and analysis; –definition of the methods for conducting the systematic retrieval, screening for relevance and appraisal of the evidence available in the literature; –overall evidence synthesis and integration (WoE) based on biological plausibility, essentiality and empirical support; –assessment of the overall AOPs certainty. …”

Häufig gestellte Fragen (FAQ) in der Risikokommunikation zu COVID-19: Erstellung und Bedeutung als interinstitutionelles Krisenreaktionsinstrument

“…Um das Vertrauen zu fördern, ist es wichtig auch wissenschaftliche Unsicherheiten zu kommunizieren [ 20 , 23 ]. Risikokommunikation, und das sind an dieser Stelle die FAQ, sollte die komplexen Prozesse der Wissenschaft und die dahinterstehenden Phänomene und Erklärungen für die Bevölkerung verständlich und nachvollziehbar erklären [ 53 , 54 ]. Dies kann dann zur Akzeptanz etwaiger Empfehlungen und Maßnahmen beitragen und das Vertrauen in die kommunizierende Institution stärken.…”