One of the best things that can happen to you as a science communicator is to be asked a question! And often the question might relate to changes in practice, or someone else’s advice: in other words, things that have to do with uncertainty. People are uncomfortable with it, but we must be prepared to address it.
In every financial prospectus I receive, there is this caveat: past performance is no guarantee of future results. Over time, the financial industry has had success with the public accepting this simple fact. And uncertainty is a part of any science. So is change. They are both normal – and necessary – parts of the scientific process.
Uncertainty was bountiful in 2020 with the COVID-19 epidemic. Even in April, 2021, the CFO where I work didn’t understand why an epidemiologist couldn’t predict COVID rates for November 2021. I asked the CFO if he could also tell me if the stock market would be up or down in November, or if bond rates would be better or worse. He saw my point, but he also expected medicine to “be better” than economics.
So, I know that working scientists deal with this. All. The. Time.
Changes in practice are common. Give people a relatable analogy: When I was a child, the doctor often prescribed antibiotics for any type of sniffle. But then antibiotic resistant bacteria started to be prevalent in humans, and practices had to change. When I was in school, Pluto was memorized with the list of planets. Better equipment gave astronomers more information, and Pluto is no longer considered a planet. Science progresses.
For people who work in STEM fields, we are used to the scientific model in our professional lives. We know that it is a loop of continuous improvement. When we publish our data, or present it at a scientific meeting, we share our findings. Implicit in our communication to peers is that caveat: current or past research is no guarantee that a new best practice won’t be found.
Another thing that we face public scrutiny on: sometimes solutions cause new problems. Antibiotics saved many lives; their overuse caused many problems that needed to be fixed. And, good research takes time. If we tried to test all possible outcomes, no progress would be made. We are comfortable with that fact – and we need to work hard to get the public to understand this.
In order to do this, we must get comfortable with explaining uncertainty. If we are asked a question about a change of practice – or a solution that caused another problem – we must lead our conversations with an analogy from another field that could be easier to understand. So, if you are asked about something involving uncertainty, remind your audience of something relatable to them:
Example: “Do you recall when antibiotic resistance started to increase? That was a solution (antibiotics) that saved many people from bacterial disease, but its overuse caused a rise in antibiotic resistance. Doctors changed their practices in prescribing these life-saving medicines as a result…So, it’s fairly common for scientific practices to change…”
Example: “How many of you went to school and memorized that Pluto was a planet? Well, as tools got better, astronomers determined that Pluto wasn’t a planet…this is just one example of how previous knowledge is updated with better technology.”
Giving an example like this reminds our audience that many things in science – and in life – are uncertain. We (calmly) acknowledge, explain, and talk about the new solutions. And in the examples above, I’ve used something that most of the public knows about – further increasing the relatability.
Studies have shown that the more often people hear a message, the more likely they are to believe it, or believe it is important. The financial industry learned this quickly. Through repeating their caveat enough, they have trained the public to understand that there can be uncertainty with investing. Market crashes remind us of what we might have forgotten, but course corrections are part of the financial cycle.
I personally have not heard any of my friends blame Alexander Fleming or Selman Waxman(1) for antibiotic resistance – and I think we need to explain that our sciences are in the same boat. Recognizing these unintended consequences, medical practitioners prescribe many fewer antibiotics now.
In the same vein, medical practitioners rarely “promise” outcomes for various treatment protocols – they might state odds but promises aren’t possible. Medicine is a science; the human body is a complex structure, and we all react differently to treatments. Soils in farm fields are complex structures, they react differently to treatments. Plant diseases are constantly evolving and with that comes pesticide resistance, which then must be solved.
When people have a question about the changing of our practices, we can explain that scientific evidence evolves. Using fertilizers as an example: The use of fertilizers was necessary to increase yields. It did that – very well. A side effect was, indeed, pollution and ecological damage, in some areas. Just like with antibiotics, recognizing unintended consequences, growers now use less fertilizer, and new application techniques have been found. Soils in one region may respond to one technique; soils in another region may respond differently – just like different human bodies.
So, when you are facing someone who has a question about uncertainty, that is a great opportunity. Remind them that the scientific process is continuously improving. If new evidence is published, then scientists and practitioners adapt their processes. Use the analogies of the stock market, or antibiotic resistance. Remind them of Pluto, and that with newer technologies came the revelation that Pluto was not a planet. Being calm, acknowledging their concern, and being repetitive is the best way to get your point across.
No one wants to see hunger in the world. We want the environment to be safe and to have clean water. We want people to be healthy. Just like the world’s population keeps changing, so does the knowledge embodied in our sciences. People are used to uncertainty in financial markets. Though they might not like uncertainty in a medical prognosis, most people accept that uncertainty is part of medical practice. With enough repeated, clear, messages about why uncertainty and change are part of scientific fields, they will begin to accept this as the certain truth it is.
Written by Susan V. Fisk, BS(Chem), M.Ed., MBA. Copyright by author.
Read more about science communications:
Communicating so people understand (Readability)
Do you want more help with your science communications? Contact me at TrulyRelatableScience@gmail.com for estimates on editing your professional web pages, public presentations, grant proposals, or to Zoom into your classroom/lab for a workshop!
(1) Fleming’s team discovered penicillin; Waxman’s team discovered streptomycin.
Relatable Science 
2 thoughts on “Explaining the certainty of uncertainty”