Statistics occupies a prominent role in science and citizens’ daily life. This article provides a state-of-the-art of the problems associated with statistics in science and in society, structured along the three paradigms defined by Bauer, Allum and Miller (2007). It explores in more detail medicine and public understanding of science on the one hand, and risks and surveys on the other. Statistics has received a good deal of attention; however, very often handled in terms of deficit – either of scientists or of citizens. Many tools have been proposed to improve statistical literacy, the image of and trust in statistics, but with little understanding of their roots, with little coordination among stakeholders and with few assessments of impacts. These deficiencies represent as many new and promising directions in which the PUS research agenda could be expanded.
AltmanD (2002) Poor-quality medical research: What can journals do?Journal of the American Medical Association287(2): 2765–2767.
2.
AltmanDBlandM (1991) Improving doctors’ understanding of statistics. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society A154(2): 223–267.
3.
AmbergSHallT (2010) Precision and rhetoric in media reporting about contamination in farmed salmon. Science Communication32(4): 489–513.
4.
AnckerJSenathirajahYKukafkaRStarrenJB (2006) Design features of graphs in health risk communication: A systematic review. Journal of the American Informatics Association13(6): 608–618.
5.
BaileyRRofiqueJHumphreyA (2010) Public Confidence in Official Statistics 2009. Report for UK Statistics Authority, National Centre for Social Research.
6.
BakkerMWichertsJ (2011) The (mis)reporting of statistical results in psychology journals. Behavioral Research43: 666–678.
7.
BauerMW (1996) Socio-demographic correlates of DK-responses in knowledge surveys: Self attributed ignorance of science. Social Science Information35(1): 39–68.
8.
BauerMW (2008) Survey research and the public understanding of science. In: BucchiMTrenchB (eds) Handbook of Public Communication of Science and Technology. New York: Routledge, pp. 111–129.
9.
BauerMWDurantJEvansG (1994) European public perceptions of science. International Journal of Public Opinion Research6(2): 163–186.
10.
BauerMWAllumNMillerS (2007) What can we learn from 25 years of PUS survey research? Liberating and expanding the agenda. Public Understanding of Science16(1): 79–95.
11.
BeckU (1992) Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity. London: SAGE.
12.
Bensaude-VincentB (2001) A genealogy of the increasing gap between science and the public. Public Understanding of Science10(1): 99–113.
13.
BestJ (2001) Damned Lies and Statistics: Untangling Numbers from the Media, Politicians and Activists. Berkeley: University of California Press.
14.
BeveridgeARudellF (1988) The polls – a review: An evaluation of “public attitudes toward science and technology”. Public Opinion Quarterly52: 374–385.
BrownEKassR (2009) What is statistics?The American Statistician63(2): 105–110.
17.
ButtonKIoannidisJPMokryszCNosekBAFlintJRobinsonESMunafòMR (2013) Power failure: Why small sample size undermines the reliability of neuroscience. Nature Reviews Neuroscience14(5): 365–376.
18.
CalmanK (1996) Cancer: Science and society and the communication of risk. British Medical Journal313: 790–802.
19.
ChiesiFPrimiC (2010) Cognitive and non-cognitive factors related to students’ statistics achievement. Statistics Education Research Journal9(1): 6–26.
20.
Crettaz von RotenF (2004) Gender differences in attitudes toward science in Switzerland. Public Understanding of Science13(2): 191–199.
21.
Crettaz von RotenF (2006) Do we need a public understanding of statistics?Public Understanding of Science15(2): 243–249.
22.
DavisonABarnsISchibeciR (1997) Problematic publics: A critical review of surveys of public attitudes to biotechnology. Science, Technology, & Human Values22(3): 317–348.
23.
De SantosM (2009) Fact-totems and the statistical imagination: The public life of a statistic in Argentina 2001. Sociological Theory27(4): 466–489.
24.
DesrosièresA (2002) The Politics of Large Numbers: A History of Statistical Reasoning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
25.
DomenighettiGD’AvanzoBEggerMBerrinoFPernegerTMosconiPZwahlenM (2003) Women’s perception of the benefits of mammography screening: Population-based survey in four countries. International Journal of Epidemiology32(5): 816–821.
26.
EB (2001) Europeans, Science and Technology. Special Eurobarometer 55.2. Brussels: European Commission.
27.
EB (2007) Europeans’ Knowledge on Economical Indicators. Standard Eurobarometer 67. Brussels: European Commission.
28.
EdwardsAElwynGStottN (1999) Communicating risk reductions: Researchers should present results with both relative and absolute risks. British Medical Journal318(7183): 603.
29.
EiserRMilesSFrewerL (2002) Trust, perceived risk, and attitudes toward food technologies. Journal of Applied Social Psychology32(11): 2423–2433.
30.
ErcanIYazıcıBYangYÖzkayaGCangurSEdizBKanI (2007) Misusage of statistics in medical research. European Journal of General Medicine4(3): 128–134.
31.
ESOMAR (2009) ESOMAR/WAPOR Guide to Opinion Polls and Published Surveys. Available at: www.esomar.org
32.
EvansGDurantJ (1995) The relationship between knowledge and attitudes in the public understanding of science. Public Understanding of Science4(1): 57–74.
33.
FellegiI (1988) The importance of good communication for statisticians. Liaison2(2): 43–45.
34.
GalI (2002) Adults’ statistical literacy: Meanings, components, responsibilities. International Statistical Review70(1): 1–25.
35.
GalesicMGarcia-RetameroR (2011) Consequences of risky behaviours: Life expectancy versus risk of disease. Patient Education and Counseling82: 30–35.
36.
GarfieldJ (2003) Assessing statistical reasoning. Statistics Education Research Journal2(1): 22–38.
37.
GaskellGWrightDO’MuircheartaighC (1993) Measuring scientific interest: The effect of knowledge questions on interest ratings. Public Understanding of Science2(1): 39–57.
38.
GaskellGStaresSAllansdottirAAllumNCastroP, et al. (2010) Europeans and Biotechnology in 2010: Winds of Change? Report to the European Commission’s Directorate-General for Research. Brussels: European Commission.
39.
GellerN (2011) Statistics: An all-encompassing discipline. Journal of the American Statistical Association106(496): 1225–1229.
40.
GibbonsM. (1994) The New Production of Knowledge: The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies. London: SAGE.
41.
GigerenzerGEdwardsA (2003) Simple tools for understanding risks: From innumeracy to insight. British Medical Journal327(27September): 741–744.
42.
GigerenzerGHertwigRVan den BroekEFasoloBKatsikopoulosK (2005) A 30% chance of rain tomorrow: How does the public understand probabilistic weather forecasts?Risk Analysis25(3): 623–629.
43.
GigerenzerGGaissmaierWKurz-MilckeESchwartzLMWoloshinS (2007) Helping doctors and patients make sense of health statistics. Psychological Science in the Public Interest8(2): 53–96.
44.
GoldinR (2009) Spinning heads and spinning news: How a lack of statistical proficiency affects media coverage. JSM – Section on Statistical Education3890–3896.
45.
Goodyear-SmithFArrollBChanLJacksonRWellsSKenealyT (2008) Patients prefer pictures to numbers to express cardiovascular benefit from treatment. Annals of Family Medicine6(3): 213–217.
46.
HandDJ (2009) Modern statistics: The myth and the magic. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series A172(2): 287–306.
47.
HarknessT (2012) Seduced by stats?Significance9(1): 46–48.
48.
HenningC (2010) Mathematical models and reality: A constructivist perspective. Foundations of Science15: 29–48.
49.
HolmesP (2003) 50 years of statistics teaching in English schools: Some milestones. The Statistician52(4): 439–474.
50.
HoltDT (2008) Official statistics, public policy and public trust. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series A171(2): 323–346.
51.
HurwitzSGardenierJ (2012) Ethical guidelines for statistical practice: The first 60 years and beyond. The American Statistician66(2): 99–103.
52.
IoannidisJ (2005) Contradicted and initially stronger effects in highly cited clinical research. Journal of the American Medical Association294(2): 218–228.
53.
IshamV (2012) The evolving society: United we stand. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series A175(2): 315–335.
54.
KallerudERambergI (2002) The order of discourse in surveys of public understanding of science. Public Understanding of Science11(2): 213–224.
55.
KaptchukT (2003) Effect of interpretive bias on research evidence. British Medical Journal326(7404): 1453–1455.
56.
KellerSA (2010) Vital statistics. Nature467: 914.
57.
LachenbruchP (2009) Communicating statistics and developing professionals. Journal of the American Statistical Association104(485): 1–4.
58.
LindseyJ (1999) Some statistical heresies. The Statistician48(1): 1–40.
59.
MacKenzieD (1978) Statistical theory and social interests: A case-study. Social Studies of Science8(1): 35–83.
60.
MaguireM (2007) Crime data and statistics. In: MaguireMMorganRReinerR (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Criminology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 241–301.
61.
MengX (2009) Desired and feared – What do we do now and over the next 50 years?The American Statistician63(3): 202–210.
62.
MillerJD (1998) The measurement of civic scientific literacy. Public Understanding of Science7(3): 203–223.
63.
MortonSC (2010) Statistics: From evidence to policy. Journal of the American Statistical Association105(489): 1–5.
64.
NSF (2010) Science and Engineering Indicators 2010. Arlington: National Science Foundation.
65.
OECD (2008) How to Monitor Public Trust in Official Statistics. 5th Meeting of the Committee on Statistics, Paris. Available at: www.oecd.org/std/50167990.pdf
66.
PalingJ (2003) Strategies to help patients understand risks. British Medical Journal327: 745–748.
67.
PardoRCalvoF (2002) Attitudes toward science among the European public: A methodological analysis. Public Understanding of Science11(2): 155–195.
68.
PetersHP (2000) From information to attitudes? Thoughts on the relationship between knowledge about science and technology and attitudes toward technology. In: DierkesMvon GroteC (eds) Between Understanding and Trust: The Public, Science and Technology. Reading: Harwood Academic Publishers, pp. 265–285.
69.
PionGLipseyM (1981) Public attitudes towards science and technology: What have surveys told us?Public Opinion Quarterly45: 303–316.
70.
ReynoldsP (2011) How do we promote clinical statistics literacy of emergency medicine residents: Is clicker technology the answer?JSM – Section on Teaching of Statistics in the Health Sciences454–461.
71.
RobertsDMBilderbackEW (1980) Reliability and validity of a statistics attitude survey. Educational and Psychological Measurement40: 235–238.
72.
RocheJMuskavitchM (2003) Limited precision in print media communication of West Nile Virus risks. Science Communication24: 353–365.
73.
RodriguezR (2013) Building the big tent for statistics. Journal of the American Statistical Association108(501): 1–6.
74.
Royal Statistical Society (1952) The teaching of statistics in schools. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society A115: 126–137.
75.
SalmonF (2012) The formula that killed Wall Street. Significance9(1): 16–20.
76.
SanchezJ. (2011) The Millennium Development Goals, national statistical offices, the International Statistical Literacy Project and statistical literacy in schools. Statistical Journal of the IAOS27: 157–171.
77.
SchauC (2003) Students’ attitudes: The “other” important outcome in statistics education. Proceedings of Joint Statistical Meetings, San Francisco. Available at: http://evaluationandstatistics.com/JSM2003.pdf
78.
SchieldM (2011) Statistical literacy: A new mission for data producers. Statistical Journal of the International Association of Official Statistics27: 173–183.
SiegfriedT (2010b) Odds are, it’s wrong: Science fails to face the shortcomings of statistics. Science News177(27 March): 26–29.
81.
SiegristMGutscherHEarleT (2005) Perception of risk: The influence of general trust, and general confidence. Journal of Risk Research8(2): 145–156.
82.
SlovicP (1986) Informing and educating the public about risk. Risk Analysis6(4): 403–415.
83.
SlovicP (1999) Trust, emotion, sex, politics, and science: Surveying the risk-assessment battlefield. Risk Analysis19(4): 689–701.
84.
SolerF (2010) Who is teaching introductory statistics?The American Statistician64(1): 19–20.
85.
SorokinPA (1956) Fads and Foibles in Modern Sociology and Related Sciences. Chicago: Henry Regnery Company.
86.
StrasakAZamanQPfeifferKPGöbelGUlmerH (2007) Statistical errors in medical research – A review of common pitfalls. Swiss Medical Weekly137: 44–49.
87.
SturgisPJBrunton-SmithIFife-SchawC (2010) Public attitudes to genomic science: An experiment in information provision. Public Understanding of Science19(2): 166–180.
88.
SwiftLMilesSPriceGMShepstoneLLeinsterSJ (2009) Do doctors need statistics? Doctors’ use of and attitudes to probability and statistics. Statistics in Medicine28(15): 1969–1981.
89.
SwitzerSHortonN (2007) What your doctor should know about statistics (but perhaps doesn’t …). Chance29(1): 17–21.
90.
ThorntonH (2003) Patients’ understanding of risk. British Medical Journal327(27September): 693–694.
91.
TownsendM (2011) The national statistical agency as educator. Statistical Journal of the IAOS27(3–4): 129–136.
92.
TressoldiPGiofréDSellaFCummingG (2013) High impact = high statistical standards? Not necessarily so. PLOS ONE8(2): e56180.
UttsJ (2003) What educated citizens should know about statistics and probability. The American Statistician57(2): 74–79.
97.
WallmanK (1993) Enhancing statistical literacy: Enriching our society. Journal of the American Statistical Association88(421): 1–8.
98.
WestCFicaloraR (2007) Clinician attitudes toward biostatistics. Mayo Clinic Proceedings82(8): 939–943.
99.
WilliamsMPayneGHodgkinsonLPoadeD (2008) Does British sociology count? Sociology students’ attitudes toward quantitative methods. Sociology42(5): 1003–1021.
100.
WindishDHuotSGreenM (2007) Medicine residents’ understanding of the biostatistics and results in the medical literature. Journal of the American Medical Association298(9): 1010–1022.
101.
WulfHAndersenBBrandenhoffPGuttlerF (1987) What do doctors know about statistics?Statistics in Medicine6(1): 3–10.
102.
WynneB (1995) Public understanding of science. In: JasanoffSMarkleGEPetersenJCPinchT (eds) Handbook of Science and Technology Studies. Thousand Oaks: SAGE, pp. 361–388.
103.
YamagishiK (1997) When a 12.86% mortality is more dangerous than 24.14%: Implications for risk communication. Applied Cognitive Psychology11: 495–506.
104.
ZimanJ (1991) Public understanding of science. Science, Technology, & Human Values16(1): 99–105.
105.
ZinnJTaylor-GoobyP (2006) Risk as an interdisciplinary research area. In: Taylor-GoobyPZinnJ (eds) Risk in Social Science. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 20–53.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
