Laura Maxim

Using the case of endocrine disrupter effects on male fertility, we explored how communicating uncertainty influences the credibility of the information that laypeople receive from scientists and how laypeople form judgments about the relationship between uncertainty and credibility. We found that laypeople assess the credibility of scientific information—whether or not it is accompanied by uncertainty—by referencing their “science model” and using non-scientific references (i.e., situations encountered in one's daily life, information received from other sources, one's own observations of the world, and one's education or professional experience). Scientific credibility is a mixture of (sometimes contradictory) considerations along these different axes. Previous studies have found that some scientists assume that communicating uncertainty will lower public credibility of science. Our results contradict this assumption for situations in which academic scientists communicate uncertainty, which is perceived as additional knowledge bringing a new perspective on certain information. People expect scientists to provide practical solutions and feel disillusionment when scientists lack straight answers. However, they accepted uncertainty as an intrinsic characteristic of science and a consequence of the limits to human beings’ capacity to understand the world. Further, the low credibility of industry scientists is further reinforced when they communicate uncertainty.

The sheer number of attempts to define and classify uncertainty reveals an awareness of its importance in environmental science for policy, though the nature of uncertainty is often misunderstood. The interdisciplinary field of uncertainty analysis is unstable; there are currently several incomplete notions of uncertainty leading to different and incompatible uncertainty classifications. One of the most salient shortcomings of present-day practice is that most of these classifications focus on quantifying uncertainty while ignoring the ...