{"id":1572,"date":"2009-08-06T16:12:27","date_gmt":"2009-08-06T20:12:27","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/esa.org\/esablog\/?p=1572"},"modified":"2009-08-06T16:12:27","modified_gmt":"2009-08-06T20:12:27","slug":"communicating-uncertainty","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/esa.org\/esablog\/2009\/08\/06\/communicating-uncertainty\/","title":{"rendered":"Communicating uncertainty &#8211; a scientific or a political question?"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><span style=\"color: #000000\"><em>This post was contributed by ESA\u2019s Director of Public Affairs, Nadine Lymn. <\/em><\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"color: #000000\">While other voices boldly make authoritative assertions over issues that may be deeply nuanced, scientists tend to communicate their considerable knowledge in ways which make them sound wishy-washy at best and completely uncertain at worst.\u00a0 This was the theme of a symposium session, \u201cGlobal Sustainability in the Face of Uncertainty: How to More Effectively Translate Ecological Knowledge to Policy Makers, Managers, and the Public\u201d that took place at ESA\u2019s Annual Meeting earlier this week.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"color: #000000\">Why this tends to be true is partly the dynamic nature of science in its quest to prove new hypothesis, and partly because scientists often fail to clearly convey the state of scientific consensus on a particular issue.\u00a0 A rare exception is the IPCC, which carefully chose words that convey levels of certainty about climate change:<\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 30px\"><span style=\"color: #000000\"><em>Virtually certain <\/em>&gt; 99% probability of occurrence<\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 30px\"><span style=\"color: #000000\"><em>Very likely <\/em>&gt; 90% probability<\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 30px\"><span style=\"color: #000000\"><em>Likely <\/em>&gt; 66% probability<\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 30px\"><span style=\"color: #000000\"><em>About as likely as not <\/em>33 to 66% probability<\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 30px\"><span style=\"color: #000000\"><em>Unlikely <\/em>&lt; 33% probability<\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 30px\"><span style=\"color: #000000\"><em>Very unlikely <\/em>&lt; 10% probability<\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 30px\"><span style=\"color: #000000\"><em>Exceptionally unlikely <\/em>&lt; 1% probability<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"color: #000000\">The session also pointed out the unfortunate reality that many questions may in fact not be science questions at all but rather policy questions.\u00a0 Both the policy and scientific communities are to blame for this phenomenon.\u00a0 Policymakers like to hang the cloak of science on an issue because they believe this will make them look cleaner and above the political fray.\u00a0 Meanwhile, too often scientists delude themselves into thinking science should always dominate in addressing a policy question, when, in fact, other considerations, such as value judgments or economics, are required.<br>\nThe session concluded that ultimately, what to do in the face of scientific uncertainty is in fact a political decision, not a scientific one.<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>This post was contributed by ESA\u2019s Director of Public Affairs, Nadine Lymn. While other voices boldly make authoritative assertions over issues that may be deeply nuanced, scientists tend to communicate their considerable knowledge in ways which make them sound wishy-washy at best and completely uncertain at worst.\u00a0 This was the theme of a symposium session, \u201cGlobal Sustainability in the Face&#8230;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":50,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[87,10],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1572","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-news-events","category-ecology-in-policy"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/esa.org\/esablog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1572","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/esa.org\/esablog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/esa.org\/esablog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/esa.org\/esablog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/50"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/esa.org\/esablog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1572"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/esa.org\/esablog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1572\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/esa.org\/esablog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1572"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/esa.org\/esablog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1572"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/esa.org\/esablog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1572"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}