Scientific uncertainty in media content: Introduction to this special issue

Visible scientists in digital communication environments: An analysis of their role performance as public experts on Twitter/X during the Covid-19 pandemic

In response to significant societal challenges, there is a growing demand for scientists to actively engage in public discussions. The recent Covid-19 pandemic led to the sudden visibility of certain scientists, necessitating them to extend their roles beyond research and actively communicate with the general public. Online platforms allow for direct engagement but increase the challenge by interconnecting different public arenas. Our case study examined the role performance of visible virologists on Twitter/X in six different time periods during the pandemic in Germany (N = 1003). Findings indicate that they often express calls to action, and voice their own views, but seldom address uncertainty. Differences over time were found in their use of different types of statements, scientific jargon and emotional language. They also utilised the opportunities of direct communication, performing roles like watchdogs or advocates, highlighting the importance for scientists to reflect on their roles as communicators.

Contrasting Objective and Perceived Risk: Predicting COVID-19 Health Behaviors in a Nationally Representative U.S. Sample

BACKGROUND

Individuals confronting health threats may display an optimistic bias such that judgments of their risk for illness or death are unrealistically positive given their objective circumstances.

PURPOSE

We explored optimistic bias for health risks using k-means clustering in the context of COVID-19. We identified risk profiles using subjective and objective indicators of severity and susceptibility risk for COVID-19.

METHODS

Between 3/18/2020-4/18/2020, a national probability sample of 6,514 U.S. residents reported both their subjective risk perceptions (e.g., perceived likelihood of illness or death) and objective risk indices (e.g., age, weight, pre-existing conditions) of COVID-19-related susceptibility and severity, alongside other pandemic-related experiences. Six months later, a subsample (N = 5,661) completed a follow-up survey with questions about their frequency of engagement in recommended health protective behaviors (social distancing, mask wearing, risk behaviors, vaccination intentions).

RESULTS

The k-means clustering procedure identified five risk profiles in the Wave 1 sample; two of these demonstrated aspects of optimistic bias, representing almost 44% of the sample. In OLS regression models predicting health protective behavior adoption at Wave 2, clusters representing individuals with high perceived severity risk were most likely to report engagement in social distancing, but many individuals who were objectively at high risk for illness and death did not report engaging in self-protective behaviors.

CONCLUSIONS

Objective risk of disease severity only inconsistently predicted health protective behavior. Risk profiles may help identify groups that need more targeted interventions to increase their support for public health policy and health enhancing recommendations more broadly.

Balance as Credibility? How Presenting One- vs. Two-Sided Messages Affects Ratings of Scientists' and Politicians' Trustworthiness

Public and private decision-making on health problems relies on scientific evidence. However, scientific knowledge includes uncertainty, as does knowledge about COVID-19. In an experimental study, we tested how the trustworthiness (on the three dimensions expertise, integrity, and benevolence) of a source of information (either a scientist or a politician), was affected when messages were either two-sided (including arguments pro and contra the effectiveness of mask-wearing) or one-sided (only pro arguments). Results showed that scientists were ascribed more expertise and integrity compared to politicians, and both sources were ascribed more expertise when they gave two-sided (instead of one-sided) information. Moreover, trustworthiness ratings on all three dimensions were affected by participants' prior topic attitudes and epistemic certainty beliefs. These findings underline that when a source provides two-sided information, this may increase people's willingness to trust that source. To use this strategy most effectively in health communication, more research should be done on how many and what types of counterarguments to include.

Sustaining positive perceptions of science in the face of conflicting health information: An experimental test of messages about the process of scientific discovery

BACKGROUND

The public is often exposed to conflicting health information, with evidence of concerning consequences, yet little attention has been paid to identifying strategies that can mitigate its effects.

OBJECTIVE

The current study tests whether three different approaches to communicating about the process of scientific discovery-a rational appeal using analogical evidence, a rational appeal using testimonial evidence, and a logic-based inoculation approach-could reduce the adverse effects of exposure to conflict by positively framing how people construe the scientific process, increasing their perceived knowledge about the scientific process, and helping them to respond to critiques about the scientific process, which, in turn, might make them less apt to counterargue the science they subsequently encounter in health news stories and other exposures to conflict.

METHODS

We fielded a survey experiment in May 2022 with a national sample of U.S. adults (N = 1604).

RESULTS

Providing any of the three messages about science prior to exposure to conflicting health information encouraged both positive construal of science and greater science knowledge perceptions and discouraged counterarguing science, compared to a control condition in which people were only exposed to conflict. Of the three messaging approaches tested, the testimonial evidence message was slightly more effective, but was also considered slightly more accurate, credible, and trustworthy.

CONCLUSIONS

Developing and implementing messages that describe the process of scientific discovery could prove successful, not only in improving public perceptions of science but perhaps ultimately in better equipping people to make sense of conflicting information and its causes. However, additional research on such strategies is needed, particularly as part of larger interventions with multiple messages across multiple exposures, if they are to have implications for health and science communication.

How the public evaluates media representations of uncertain science: An integrated explanatory framework

Understanding how to portray uncertain science to the public is a pressing goal for science communication. This study compared US public audience reactions to a news article depicting a novel discovery in neurogenomics as certain or uncertain, with statements of (un)certainty attributed to either affiliated or unaffiliated scientists. The uncertainty disclosure had no main effect on perceived news article credibility, scientist trustworthiness, objectivity of the scientists' depiction, or willingness to participate in genomic research. However, news credibility and scientist objectivity ratings were higher for uncertainty disclosure attributed to the affiliated scientists. Participants with greater preference for information about uncertainty found the scientists more trustworthy, their depictions more balanced, and the news article more credible when the research was described as uncertain, and these effects were stronger for affiliated scientist attribution. Findings underscore the important roles of disclosure source and audience characteristics in public reactions to media representations of scientific uncertainty.

Are we bad winners? Public understandings of the United Nations' World Happiness Report among Finnish digital media and their readers

In this research, we investigate the public understanding of the World Happiness Report within the context of its highest-ranking country: Finland. We analyse how two actors, Finnish online media and their readers, understood the publication as well as the concept being measured: happiness. Digital media adopted an ambivalent stance towards both the World Happiness Report ('sports victory' vs 'societal problems') and the concept of happiness ('reticence to define happiness' vs 'secrets of Finnish happiness'). Readers agreeing with the World Happiness Report define Finland as an 'almost utopia' while readers disagreeing with the World Happiness Report, in addition to presenting a reversed image of Finland ('almost dystopia'), further justify their distrust towards the World Happiness Report by attacking the publication, its authors and the participants (Finns). Both actors carefully construct their understanding of happiness to fit their arguments aimed at the glorification/scandalization of the World Happiness Report.

Communicating Scientific Uncertainty in an Age of COVID-19: An Investigation into the Use of Preprints by Digital Media Outlets

In this article, we investigate the surge in use of COVID-19-related preprints by media outlets. Journalists are a main source of reliable public health information during crises and, until recently, journalists have been reluctant to cover preprints because of the associated scientific uncertainty. Yet, uploads of COVID-19 preprints and their uptake by online media have outstripped that of preprints about any other topic. Using an innovative approach combining altmetrics methods with content analysis, we identified a diversity of outlets covering COVID-19-related preprints during the early months of the pandemic, including specialist medical news outlets, traditional news media outlets, and aggregators. We found a ubiquity of hyperlinks as citations and a multiplicity of framing devices for highlighting the scientific uncertainty associated with COVID-19 preprints. These devices were rarely used consistently (e.g., mentioning that the study was a preprint, unreviewed, preliminary, and/or in need of verification). About half of the stories we analyzed contained framing devices emphasizing uncertainty. Outlets in our sample were much less likely to identify the research they mentioned as preprint research, compared to identifying it as simply "research." This work has significant implications for public health communication within the changing media landscape. While current best practices in public health risk communication promote identifying and promoting trustworthy sources of information, the uptake of preprint research by online media presents new challenges. At the same time, it provides new opportunities for fostering greater awareness of the scientific uncertainty associated with health research findings.

Untangling Trustworthiness and Uncertainty in Science: Implications for Science Education

This article focuses on uncertainty-ways in which scientists recognize and analyze limits in their studies and conclusions. We distinguish uncertainty from (un)trustworthiness-ways in which scientific reports can be affected by conscious deception or unconscious bias. Scientific journal articles typically include analyses and quantifications of uncertainty in both quantitative forms (e.g., error bars, ranges of predictions, statistical tests) and qualitative forms (e.g., alternate hypotheses, limitations of studies, questions for future research). These analyses of uncertainty are often incorporated into reports from scientific organizations and responsible scientific journalism. We argue that a critical goal of science education should be to help students understand how science may be employed as an uncertain and limited, yet still useful tool for informing decisions about socioscientific problems. When members of the public are insufficiently prepared to understand analyses and quantifications of uncertainty, the consequences are manifest in public skepticism about science and inadequately informed decision-making about socioscientific issues. We describe current design work in science education that includes a worthwhile emphasis on helping students to recognize and leverage uncertainty in their own data and models. Additional important work can enable students to develop proficiency in seeking out and understanding analyses of continuing uncertainty in media accounts of scientific conclusions and predictions.

The explanation of a complex problem: A content analysis of causality in cancer news

Understanding causality is a critical part of developing preventive and treatment actions against cancer. Three main causality models-necessary, sufficient-component, and probabilistic causality have been commonly used to explain the causation between causal factors and risks in health science. However, news media do not usually follow a strict protocol to report the causality of health risks. The purpose of this study was to describe and understand how the causation of cancer was articulated on news media. A content analysis of 471 newspaper articles published in the United States during two time-frames (2007-2008 and 2017-2018) was conducted. The analysis showed that probabilistic causality was most frequently used to explain the causal relationship between risk factors and cancer. The findings also uncovered other important details of news framing, including types and characteristics of risk factors, intervention measures, and sources of evidence. The results provided theoretical and practical implications for public understanding and assessment of cancer risks.

Communicating scientific uncertainty in a rapidly evolving situation: a framing analysis of Canadian coverage in early days of COVID-19

Background

The COVID-19 pandemic brought the production of scientific knowledge onto the public agenda in real-time. News media and commentators analysed the successes and failures of the pandemic response in real-time, bringing the process of scientific inquiry, which is also fraught with uncertainty, onto the public agenda. We examine how Canadian newspapers framed scientific uncertainty in their initial coverage of the COVID-19 pandemic and how journalists made sense of the scientific process.

Methods

We conducted a framing analysis of 1143 news stories and opinion during the first two waves of the COVID-19 pandemic. Using a qualitative analysis software, our analysis focused, first, on how scientific uncertainty was framed in hard news and opinion discourse (editorial, op-ed). Second, we compared how specialist health and science reporters discussed scientific evidence versus non-specialist reporters in hard news and columns.

Results

Uncertainty emerged as a “master frame” across the sample, and four additional framing strategies were used by reporters and commentators when covering the pandemic: (1), evidence -focusing on presence or absence of it-; (2) transparency and leadership -focusing on the pandemic response-; (3) duelling experts – highlighting disagreement among experts or criticizing public health decisions for not adhering to expert recommendations-; and (4) mixed messaging -criticizing public health communication efforts. While specialist journalists understood that scientific knowledge evolves and the process is fraught with uncertainty, non-specialist reporters and commentators expressed frustration over changing public health guidelines, leading to the politicization of the pandemic response and condemnation of elected officials’ decisions.

Conclusions

Managing scientific uncertainty in evolving science-policy situations requires timely and clear communication. Public health officials and political leaders need to provide clear and consistent messages and access to data regarding infection prevention guidelines. Public health officials should quickly engage in communication course corrections if original messages are missing the intended mark, and clearly explain the shift. Finally, public health communicators should be aware of and more responsive to a variety of media reporters, who will bring different interpretative frames to their reporting. More care and effort are needed in these communication engagements to minimize inconsistencies, uncertainty, and politicization.

Before and after the Chinese gene-edited human babies: Multiple discourses of gene editing on social media

This study examines discourses in Chinese online discussions of gene editing by multiple social actors on Weibo before and after a significant scientific crisis, the 2018 scandal of Chinese gene-edited human babies. A content analysis of 2074 posts was done to identify frames, emotions, and metaphors. Findings reveal that Chinese social media have opened up new spaces for multiple social actors to generate multiple discourses. This has resulted in a more participatory public engagement with science and technology on Chinese social media, potentially influencing the online agenda and policy decisions on science and technology. Finally, findings indicate that a scientific crisis can serve as a trigger for significant changes in public attitudes and opinions regarding gene editing.

Co-producing uncertainty in public science: The case of genomic selection in forestry

Co-production can inform analysis and communication of the uncertainties associated with novel forms of science and technology. Genomic selection-a relatively novel management tool consisting of predictive modeling based on associations between genetic and phenotypic data-holds many unknowns, particularly when used as a climate adaptation strategy. Approaching genomic selection as an example of public science, we examined beliefs about uncertainty and public engagement in a community of forest research professionals. Findings show broad-ranging approaches to uncertainty, alongside a prevalence of deficit accounts of public engagement. Even with broad acknowledgment of a range of uncertainties, forestry experts nonetheless relied on statistical, quantitative methods to manage uncertainties, in ways that overshadowed discussions about ignorance, indeterminacy, and ambiguity. Social scientists can enhance the communication of uncertainty in public science by making apparent expert-based assumptions about knowledge and intended audiences.

The problems of increasing transparency on uncertainty

Public regulators (such as European Food Safety Authority, European Medicines Agency, and European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control) are placing increasing demands on scientists to make uncertainties about their evidence transparent to the public. The stated goal is utilitarian, to inform and empower the public and ensure the accountability of policy and decision-making around the use of scientific evidence. However, it is questionable what constitutes uncertainty around the evidence on any given topic, and, while the goal is laudable, we argue the drive to increase transparency on uncertainty of the scientific process specifically does more harm than good, and may not serve the interests of those intended. While highlighting some of the practical implications of making uncertainties transparent using current guidelines, the aim is to discuss what could be done to make it worthwhile for both public and scientists.