This introduction sets the stage for the special issue on the public communication of scientific uncertainty that follows by sketching the wider landscape of issues related to the communication of uncertainty and showing how the individual contributions fit into that landscape. The first part of the introduction discusses the creation of media content as a process involving journalists, scientific sources, stakeholders, and the responsive audience. The second part then provides an overview of the perception of scientific uncertainty presented by the media and the consequences for the recipients’ own assessments of uncertainty. Finally, we briefly describe the six research articles included in this special issue.
AndersonAABrossardDScheufeleDAXenosMALadwigP (2014) The “nasty effect”: Online incivility and risk perceptions of emerging technologies. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication19(3): 373–387.
3.
BinderARHillbackEBrossardD (2016) Conflict or caveats? Effects of media portrayals of scientific uncertainty on audience perceptions of new technologies. Risk Analysis36(4): 831–846.
4.
BleckmannCA (2006) Evolution and creationism in science: 1880–2000. BioScience56(2): 151–158.
5.
BoykoffMTBoykoffJM (2004) Balance as bias: Global warming and the US prestige press. Global Environmental Change-Human and Policy Dimensions14(2): 125–136.
6.
BroadKLeiserowitzAWeinkleJSteketeeM (2007) Misinterpretations of the “cone of uncertainty” in Florida during the 2004 hurricane season. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society88: 651–667.
7.
BucchiM (1998) Science and the Media: Alternative Routes in Scientific Communication. London: Routledge.
8.
CampbellBL (1985) Uncertainty as symbolic action in disputes among experts. Social Studies of Science15(3): 429–453.
ClarkeCEWeberling McKeeverBHoltonADixonGN (2015) The influence of weight-of-evidence messages on (vaccine)attitudes: A sequential mediation model. Journal of Health Communication20(11): 1302–1309.
11.
ColeSColeJR (1967) Scientific output and recognition: A study in the operation of the reward system in science. American Sociological Review32(3): 377–390.
12.
CorbettJBDurfeeJL (2004) Testing public (un)certainty of science media representations of global warming. Science Communication26(2): 129–151.
13.
DearingJW (1995) Newspaper coverage of maverick science: Creating controversy through balancing. Public Understanding of Science4(4): 341–361.
14.
DieckmannNFPetersEGregoryR (2015) At home on the range? Lay interpretations of numerical uncertainty ranges. Risk Analysis35(7): 1281–1295.
DunlapREMcCrightAM (2011) Organized climate change denial. In: DryzekJSNorgaardRBSchlosbergD (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Climate Change and Society. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 144–160.
17.
DunwoodyS (1999) Scientists, journalists, and the meaning of uncertainty. In: FriedmanSMDunwoodySRogersCL (eds) Communicating Uncertainty: Media Coverage of New and Controversial Science. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 59–79.
FahnestockJ (1986) Accommodating science: The rhetorical life of scientific facts. Written Communication3(3): 275–296.
20.
FischhoffBDavisAL (2014) Communicating scientific uncertainty. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences111(Suppl. 4): 13664–13671.
21.
FleckL (1935) Entstehung und Entwicklung einer wissenschaftlichen Tatsache: Einführung in die Lehre vom Denkstil und Denkkollektiv [Genesis and Development of a Scientific Fact: Introduction into the Theory of Thought Style and Thought Collective]. Basel: Schwabe.
22.
FrewerLHuntSBrennanMKuznesofSNessMRitsonC (2003) The views of scientific experts on how the public conceptualize uncertainty. Journal of Risk Research6(1): 75–85.
23.
FriedmanSMDunwoodySRogersCL (1986) Scientists and Journalists: Reporting Science as News. New York, NY: The Free Press.
24.
GastonJ (1970) Communication and the reward system of science: A study of a national “invisible college.”The Sociological Review18(S1): 25–41.
25.
GigerenzerGHoffrageU (1995) How to improve Bayesian reasoning without instruction: Frequency formats. Psychological Review102: 684–704.
26.
GigerenzerGHoffrageU (1999) Helping people overcome difficulties in Bayesian reasoning: A reply to Lewis and Keren (1999) and Mellers and McGraw (1999). Psychological Review106: 425–430.
27.
GirottoVGonzalezM (2002) Chances and frequencies in probabilistic reasoning: Rejoinder to Hoffrage, Gigerenzer, Krauss, and Martignon. Cognition84: 353–359.
28.
GononFBezardEBoraudT (2011) Misrepresentation of neuroscience data might give rise to misleading conclusions in the media: The case of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. PLoS ONE6(1): 1–8.
29.
GuentherLRuhrmannG (2016) Scientific evidence and mass media: Investigating the journalistic intention to represent scientific uncertainty. Public Understanding of Science25(8): 927–943.
30.
HeazleM (2006) Scientific Uncertainty and the Politics of Whaling. Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press.
31.
HendriksFKienhuesDBrommeR (2016) Evoking vigilance: Would you (dis)trust a scientist who discusses ethical implications of research in a science blog?Public Understanding of Science25(8): 992–1008.
32.
HilgartnerS (1990) The dominant view of popularization: Conceptual problems, political uses. Social Studies of Science20(3): 519–539.
33.
HoffrageUGigerenzerGKraussSMartignonL (2002) Representation facilitates reasoning: What natural frequencies are and what they are not. Cognition84: 343–352.
JensenJD (2008) Scientific uncertainty in news coverage of cancer research: Effects of hedging on scientists’ and journalists’ credibility. Human Communication Research34(3): 347–369.
36.
JensenJDHurleyRJ (2012) Conflicting stories about public scientific controversies: Effects of news convergence and divergence on scientists’ credibility. Public Understanding of Science21(6): 689–704.
37.
JoslynSSavelliS (2010) Communicating forecast uncertainty: Public perception of weather forecast uncertainty. Meteorological Applications17(2): 180–195.
38.
KahnemanDTverskyA (1982) Variants of uncertainty. Cognition11(2): 143–157.
39.
KepplingerHM (1989) Künstliche Horizonte: Folgen, Darstellung und Akzeptanz von Technik in der Bundesrepublik [Artificial Horizons: Consequences, Presentation and Acceptance of Technology in Germany]. Frankfurt am Main: Campus.
40.
KienhuesDStadtlerMBrommeR (2011) Dealing with conflicting or consistent medical information on the web: When expert information breeds laypersons’ doubts about experts. Learning and Instruction21(2): 193–204.
41.
KohlPAKimSYPengYAkinHKohEJHowellA. (2016) The influence of weight-of-evidence strategies on audience perceptions of (un)certainty when media cover contested science. Public Understanding of Science25(8): 976–991.
KortenkampKVBastenB (2015) Environmental science in the media effects of opposing viewpoints on risk and uncertainty perceptions. Science Communication37(3): 287–313.
44.
LehmkuhlMPetersHP (2016) Constructing (un-)certainty: An exploration of journalistic decision-making in the reporting of neuroscience. Public Understanding of Science25(8): 909–926.
45.
LibetB (1985) Unconscious cerebral initiative and the role of conscious will in voluntary action. Behavioral and Brain Sciences8(4): 529–566.
46.
LinS-WBierVM (2008) A study of expert overconfidence. Reliability Engineering & System Safety93(5): 711–721.
47.
LøhreETeigenKH (2015) There is a 60% probability, but I am 70% certain: Communicative consequences of external and internal expressions of uncertainty. Thinking & Reasoning22(4): 369–396.
48.
MazurA (2004) True Warnings and False Alarms: Evaluating Fears about the Health Risks of Technology, 1948–1971. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.
49.
MertonRK (1957) Social Theory and Social Structure. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.
50.
MortonTRabinovichAMarshallDBretschneiderP (2011) The future that may (or may not) come: How framing changes responses to uncertainty in climate change communications. Global Environmental Change21(1): 103–109.
51.
NelkinD (1992) Controversy: The Politics of Technical Decisions, 3rd edn.Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.
NowotnyH (1982) Experten und ihre Expertise: Zum Verhältnis der Experten zur Öffentlichkeit. Zeitschrift für Wissenschaftsforschung [Experts and their expertise: On the relationship between experts and public] 2(3): 611–617.
54.
On Designing Communication, between the Scientific Community the Public and the Media (2014) acatech-National Academy of Science and Engineering, Union of the German Academies of Science and Humanities. German National Academy of Sciences Leopoldina, (Report). Available at: http://www.leopoldina.org/uploads/tx_leopublication/2014_06_Stellungnahme_WOeM_EN.pdf
55.
OreskesNConwayEM (2010) Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming. New York, NY: Bloomsbury Press.
56.
PetersHP (1995) The interaction of journalists and scientific experts: Co-operation and conflict between two professional cultures. Media Culture & Society17(1): 31–48.
57.
PetersHP (2000) The committed are hard to persuade. Recipients’ thoughts during exposure to newspaper and TV stories on genetic engineering and their effect on attitudes. New Genetics and Society19(3): 365–381.
58.
PetersHPAllgaierJDunwoodySLoY-YBrossardDJungA (2013) Medialisierung der Neurowissenschaften: Bedeutung journalistischer Medien für die Wissenschafts-Governance [Medialization of the neurosciences: Relevance of journalistic media for science governance]. In: GrandeEJansenDJarrenO. (eds) Neue Governance der Wissenschaft: Reorganisation—externe Anforderungen—Medialisierung [New Governance of Science: Reorganization–External Demands–Medialization]. Bielefeld: Transcript, pp. 311–335.
59.
PetersHPHeinrichsH (2005) Öffentliche Kommunikation über Klimawandel und Sturmflutrisiken: Bedeutungskonstruktion durch Experten, Journalisten und Bürger [Public Communication about Climate Change and Storm Flood Risks: Meaning Construction by Experts, Journalists and Citizens]. Jülich: Forschungszentrum Jülich.
60.
PetersHPBrossardDDe CheveignéSDunwoodySKallfassMMillerS. (2009) Kontakte biomedizinischer Forscher mit Journalisten und Öffentlichkeit: internationaler Vergleich von Erfahrungen und Einstellungen in Deutschland, Frankreich, Großbritannien, Japan und den USA [Contacts of biomedical researchers with journalists and the public: International comparison of experiences and attitudes in Germany, France, Great Britain, Japan and the USA]. In: PetersHP (ed.) Medienorientierung biomedizinischer Forscher im internationalen Vergleich. Die Schnittstelle von Wissenschaft & Journalismus und ihre politische Relevanz [International Comparison of Biomedical Researchers’ Media Orientations. The Interface of Science & Journalism and its Political Relevance]. Jülich: Forschungszentrum Jülich, pp. 45–99.
61.
PostS (2013) Wahrheitskriterien von Journalisten und Wissenschaftlern [Truth Criteria of Journalists and Scientists]. Baden-Baden: Nomos.
62.
PostS (2016) Communicating science in public controversies: Strategic considerations of the German climate scientists. Public Understanding of Science25(1): 61–70.
63.
PostSMaierM (2016) Stakeholders’ rationales for representing uncertainties of biotechnological research. Public Understanding of Science25(8): 944–960.
64.
PowellMDunwoodySGriffinRNeuwirthK (2007) Exploring lay uncertainty about an environmental health risk. Public Understanding of Science16(3): 323–343.
65.
RothmanS (1990) Journalists, broadcasters, scientific experts and public opinion. Minerva28(2): 117–133.
66.
RowanKE (1999) Effective explanation of uncertain and complex science. In: FriedmanSMDunwoodySRogersCL (eds) Communicating Uncertainty: Media Coverage of New and Controversial Science. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 201–223.
67.
RühlM (1981) Journalismus und Wissenschaft—Anmerkungen zu ihrem Wirklichkeitsverständnis. Rundfunk und Fernsehen [journalism and science–remarks on their concept of reality] 29(2–3): 211–222.
68.
RuhrmannGGuentherLKesslerSHMildeJ (2015) Frames of scientific evidence: How journalists represent the (un)certainty of molecular medicine in science television programs. Public Understanding of Science24(6): 681–696.
69.
SalomoneKLGreenbergMRSandmanPMSachsmanDB (1990) A question of quality: How journalists and news sources evaluate coverage of environmental risk. Journal of Communication40(4): 117–131.
70.
SimmerlingAJanichN (2016) Rhetorical functions of a ‘language of uncertainty’ in the mass media. Public Understanding of Science25(8): 961–975.
71.
SingerEEndrenyPM (1993) Reporting on Risk: How the Mass Media Portray Accidents, Diseases, Disasters, and Other Hazards. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
72.
StockingSH (1999) How journalists deal with scientific uncertainty. In: FriedmanSMDunwoodySRogersCL (eds) Communicating Uncertainty: Media Coverage of New and Controversial Science. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 23–41.
73.
StockingSHHolsteinLW (2009) Manufacturing doubt: Journalists’ roles and the construction of ignorance in a scientific controversy. Public Understanding of Science18(1): 23–42.
74.
TverskyAKahnemanD (1992) Advances in prospect theory: Cumulative representation of uncertainty. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty5(4): 297–323.
75.
WehlingP (2015) Nichtwissenskulturen—Theoretische Konturen eines neuen Konzepts der Wissenschaftsforschung. In: WehlingPBöschenS (eds) Nichtwissenskulturen und Nichtwissensdiskurse [Cultures of ignorance–theoretical outline of a new concept in the Social Studies of Science]. Über den Umgang mit Nichtwissen in Wissenschaft und Öffentlichkeit [Cultures of Ignorance and Discourses on Ignorance. How Science and the Public Deal with Ignorance]. Baden-Baden: Nomos, pp. 23–66.
76.
WeingartP (2001) Die Stunde der Wahrheit? Zum Verhältnis der Wissenschaft zu Politik, Wirtschaft und Medien in der Wissensgesellschaft [The Hour of Truth? On the Relationship of Science with Politics, Economy and Media in the Knowledge Society]. Weilerswist: Velbrück Wissenschaft.
77.
WeingartP (2012) The lure of the mass media and its repercussions on science. In: RödderSFranzenMWeingartP (eds) The Sciences’ Media Connection—Public Communication and its Repercussions. Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 17–32.
YeoSKLiangXBrossardDRoseKMKorzekwaKScheufeleDA. (2016) The case of #arseniclife: Blogs and Twitter in informal peer review. Public Understanding of Science. Epub ahead of print 26May. DOI: 10.1177/0963662516649806.
80.
ZehrSC (1999) Scientists’ representation of uncertainty. In: FriedmanSMDunwoodySRogersCL (eds) Communicating Uncertainty: Media Coverage of New and Controversial Science. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 3–21.
