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.
BeckU (2006) Living in the world risk society: A Hobhouse Memorial Public Lecture given on Wednesday 15 February 2006 at the London School of Economics. Economy and Society35: 329–345.
2.
BeckUBonssWLauC (2003) The theory of reflexive modernization: Problematic, hypotheses and research programme. Theory, Culture & Society20: 1–33.
3.
BieseckerBBWoolfordSWKleinWMPBrothersKBUmsteadKLLewisKL, et al. (2017) PUGS: A novel scale to assess perceptions of uncertainties in genome sequencing. Clinical Genetics92: 172–179.
4.
BroomellSBKanePB (2017) Public perception and communication of scientific uncertainty. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General146: 286–304.
5.
DaviesSR (2008) Constructing communication: Talking to scientists about talking to the public. Science Communication29: 413–434.
6.
De La TorreARBirolIBousquetJIngvarssonPKJanssonSJonesSJM, et al. (2014) Insights into conifer giga-genomes. Plant Physiology166: 1724–1732.
7.
EatonWWrightWWhyteKGasteyerSPGehrkePJ (2014) Engagement and uncertainty: Emerging technologies challenge the work of engagement. Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement18: 151.
8.
FischhoffBDavisAL (2014) Communicating scientific uncertainty. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences111: 13664.
9.
FrewerLHuntSBrennanMKuznesofSNessMRitsonC (2003) The views of scientific experts on how the public conceptualize uncertainty. Journal of Risk Research6: 75–85.
10.
GianolaDRosaGJM (2015) One hundred years of statistical developments in animal breeding. Annual Review of Animal Biosciences3: 19–56.
11.
GrattapagliaDSilva-JuniorOBResendeRTCappaEPMüllerBSFTanB, et al. (2018) Quantitative genetics and genomics converge to accelerate forest tree breeding. Frontiers in Plant Science. Epub ahead of print 22 November. DOI: 10.3389/fpls.2018.01693.
12.
GriffinRJ (2016) Scientific uncertainty in media content: Some reflections on this special issue. Public Understanding of Science25: 1009–1013.
13.
HajjarRMcGuiganEMoshofskyMKozakRA (2014) Opinions on strategies for forest adaptation to future climate conditions in western Canada: Surveys of the general public and leaders of forest-dependent communities. Canadian Journal of Forest Research44: 1525–1533.
14.
HanPKJUmsteadKLBernhardtBAGreenRCJoffeSKoenigB, et al. (2017) A taxonomy of medical uncertainties in clinical genome sequencing. Genet Med19: 918–925.
15.
HjörleifssonSScheiE (2006) Scientific rationality, uncertainty and the governance of human genetics: An interview study with researchers at deCODE genetics. European Journal of Human Genetics14: 802–808.
16.
IrwinA (2008) Risk, science and public communication: Third-order thinking about scientific culture. In: BucchiMTrenchB (eds) Handbook of Public Communication of Science and Technology. London and New York: Routledge, pp. 199–212
17.
JasanoffS (2004) States of Knowledge: The Co-Production of Science and Social Order. London and New York: Routledge.
18.
JasanoffS (2005) In the democracies of DNA: Ontological uncertainty and political order in three states. New Genetics and Society24: 139–156.
19.
KnightF (1921) Risk, Uncertainty, and Profit. Boston, MA: Houghton and Mifflin.
20.
LandströmCHauxwell-BaldwinRLorenzoniIRogers-HaydenT (2015) The (Mis)understanding of scientific uncertainty? How experts view policy-makers, the media and publics. Science as Culture24: 276–298.
LevidowLMarrisC (2001) Science and governance in Europe: Lessons from the case of agricultural biotechnology. Science and Public Policy28: 345–360.
23.
LidskogRStandringA (2020) The institutional machinery of expertise: Producing facts, figures and futures in COVID-19. Acta Sociologica63(4): 443–446.
24.
MarchauVWalkerWBloemenPPopperS (2019) Decision Making Under Deep Uncertainty: From Theory to Practice. New York: Springer.
25.
MessierCPuettmannKFilotasECoatesD (2016) Dealing with non-linearity and uncertainty in forest management. Current Forestry Reports2: 150–161.
26.
MeuwissenTHHayesBJGoddardME (2001) Prediction of total genetic value using genome-wide dense marker maps. Genetics157: 1819–1829.
27.
MillerCAWybornC (2018) Co-production in global sustainability: Histories and theories. Environmental Science & Policy 113: 88–95
28.
MortonTRabinovichAMarshallDBretschneiderP (2011) The future that may (or may not) come: How framing changes responses to uncertainty in climate change communications. Global Environmental Change21: 103–109.
29.
NewsonAJLeonardSJHallAGaffCL (2016) Known unknowns: Building an ethics of uncertainty into genomic medicine. BMC Medical Genomics9: 57.
30.
NystedtBStreetNRWetterbomAZuccoloALinY-CScofieldDG, et al. (2013) The Norway spruce genome sequence and conifer genome evolution. Nature497: 579–584.
31.
PetersHPDunwoodyS (2016) Scientific uncertainty in media content: Introduction to this special issue. Public Understanding of Science25: 893–908.
32.
Peterson St-LaurentGHagermanSFindlaterKMKozakR (2019) Public trust and knowledge in the context of emerging climate-adaptive forestry policies. Journal of Environmental Management242: 474–486.
33.
PowellMDunwoodySGriffinRNeuwirthK (2007) Exploring lay uncertainty about an environmental health risk. Public Understanding of Science16: 323–343.
34.
RetzbachJOttoLMaierM (2015) Measuring the perceived uncertainty of scientific evidence and its relationship to engagement with science. Public Understanding of Science25: 638–655.
35.
RipA (2006) Folk theories of nanotechnologists. Science as Culture15: 349–365.
36.
SaltelliABammerGBrunoIChartersEDi FioreMDidierE, et al. (2020) Five ways to ensure that models serve society: A manifesto. Nature582: 482–484.
SmallmanM (2019) “Nothing to do with the science”: How an elite sociotechnical imaginary cements policy resistance to public perspectives on science and technology through the machinery of government. Social Studies of Science50: 589–608.
39.
StilgoeJ (2007) The (co-)production of public uncertainty: UK scientific advice on mobile phone health risks. Public Understanding of Science16: 45–61.
40.
StirlingA (2007a) “Opening up” and “closing down”: Power, participation, and pluralism in the social appraisal of technology. Science, Technology, & Human Values33: 262–294.
41.
StirlingA (2007b) Risk, precaution and science: Towards a more constructive policy debate. Talking point on the precautionary principle. EMBO Reports8: 309–315.
42.
StirlingAGeeD (2002) Science, precaution, and practice. Public Health Reports117: 521–533.
43.
Van der BlesAMVan Der LindenSFreemanAMitchellJGalvaoAZavalL, et al. (2019) Communicating uncertainty about facts, numbers and science. Royal Society Open Science6(5): 181870.
44.
WhitmarshL (2011) Scepticism and uncertainty about climate change: Dimensions, determinants and change over time. Global Environmental Change21: 690–700.
45.
WicksonF (2007) From risk to uncertainty in the regulation of GMOs: Social theory and Australian practice. New Genetics and Society26: 325–339.
46.
WynneB (1992) Uncertainty and environmental learning: Reconceiving science and policy in the preventive paradigm. Global Environmental Change2: 111–127.
47.
WynneB (1993) Public uptake of science: A case for institutional reflexivity. Public Understanding of Science2: 321–337.
48.
WynneB (2001) Creating public alienation: Expert cultures of risk and ethics on GMOs. Science as Culture10: 445–481.
49.
WynneB (2002) Risk and environment as legitimatory discourses of technology: Reflexivity inside out?Current Sociology50: 459–477.
50.
WynneB (2005) Reflexing complexity: Post-genomic knowledge and reductionist returns in public science. Theory, Culture & Society22: 67–94.
51.
WynneB (2007) Public participation in science and technology: Performing and obscuring a political-conceptual category mistake. East Asian Science, Technology and Society: An International Journal1: 99–110.
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.
