Explore the vast range of titles available.

The May 2012 Sackler Colloquium on “The Science of Science Communication” brought together scientists with research to communicate and scientists whose research could facilitate that communication. The latter include decision scientists who can identify the scientific results that an audience needs to know, from among all of the scientific results that it would be nice to know; behavioral scientists who can design ways to convey those results and then evaluate the success of those attempts; and social scientists who can create the channels needed for trustworthy communications. This overview offers an introduction to these communication sciences and their roles in science-based communication programs.

A major challenge facing climate scientists is explaining to non-specialists the risks and uncertainties surrounding potential changes over the coming years, decades and centuries. Although there are many guidelines for climate communication, there is little empirical evidence of their efficacy, whether for dispassionately explaining the science or for persuading people to act in more sustainable ways. Moreover, climate communication faces new challenges as assessments of climate-related changes confront uncertainty more explicitly and adopt risk-based approaches to evaluating impacts. Given its critical importance, public understanding of climate science deserves the strongest possible communications science to convey the practical implications of large, complex, uncertain physical, biological and social processes. Here, we identify the communications science that is needed to meet this challenge and the ambitious, interdisciplinary initiative that its effective application to climate science requires. Explaining climate risks and uncertainties to non-specialists is fraught with difficulties. An array of principles and guidelines has been developed to aid this process, but there is little evidence for their efficacy. An empirical approach is thus needed to identify the communications approaches that will effectively convey the practical implications of large, complex, uncertain physical, biological and social processes. An ambitious interdisciplinary initiative will be required to deliver effective climate science communication, including institutional support to sustain it.

All science has uncertainty. Unless that uncertainty is communicated effectively, decision makers may put too much or too little faith in it. The information that needs to be communicated depends on the decisions that people face. Are they (i) looking for a signal (e.g., whether to evacuate before a hurricane), (ii) choosing among fixed options (e.g., which medical treatment is best), or (iii) learning to create options (e.g., how to regulate nanotechnology)? We examine these three classes of decisions in terms of how to characterize, assess, and convey the uncertainties relevant to each. We then offer a protocol for summarizing the many possible sources of uncertainty in standard terms, designed to impose a minimal burden on scientists, while gradually educating those whose decisions depend on their work. Its goals are better decisions, better science, and better support for science.

Effective science communication requires assembling scientists with knowledge relevant to decision makers, translating that knowledge into useful terms, establishing trusted two-way communication channels, evaluating the process, and refining it as needed. Communicating Science Effectively: A Research Agenda [National Research Council (2017)] surveys the scientific foundations for accomplishing these tasks, the research agenda for improving them, and the essential collaborative relations with decision makers and communication professionals. Recognizing the complexity of the science, the decisions, and the communication processes, the report calls for a systems approach. This perspective offers an approach to creating such systems by adapting scientific methods to the practical constraints of science communication. It considers staffing (are the right people involved?), internal collaboration (are they talking to one another?), and external collaboration (are they talking to other stakeholders?). It focuses on contexts where the goal of science communication is helping people to make autonomous choices rather than promoting specific behaviors (e.g., voter turnout, vaccination rates, energy consumption). The approach is illustrated with research in two domains: decisions about preventing sexual assault and responding to pandemic disease.

The feeling of being observed or merely participating in an experiment can affect individuals’ behavior. Referred to as the Hawthorne effect, this inconsistently observed phenomenon can both provide insight into individuals' behavior and confound the interpretation of experimental manipulations. Here, we pursue both topics in examining how the Hawthorne effect emerges in a large field experiment focused on residential consumers’ electricity use. These consumers received five postcards notifying, and then reminding, them of their participation in a study of household electricity use. We found evidence for a Hawthorne (study participation) effect, seen in a reduction of their electricity use—even though they received no information, instruction, or incentives to change. Responses to a follow-up survey suggested that the effect reflected heightened awareness of energy consumption. Consistent with that interpretation, the treatment effect vanished when the intervention ended.

Although Americans generally hold science in high regard and respect its findings, for some contested issues, such as the existence of anthropogenic climate change, public opinion is polarized along religious and political lines. We ask whether individuals with more general education and greater science knowledge, measured in terms of science education and science literacy, display more (or less) polarized beliefs on several such issues. We report secondary analyses of a nationally representative dataset (the General Social Survey), examining the predictors of beliefs regarding six potentially controversial issues. We find that beliefs are correlated with both political and religious identity for stem cell research, the Big Bang, and human evolution, and with political identity alone on climate change. Individuals with greater education, science education, and science literacy display more polarized beliefs on these issues. We find little evidence of political or religious polarization regarding nanotechnology and genetically modified foods. On all six topics, people who trust the scientific enterprise more are also more likely to accept its findings. We discuss the causal mechanisms that might underlie the correlation between education and identity-based polarization.

We examine Alaska Department of Fish and Game’s adherence to derived indicators of ecological and social sustainability. Ecological indicators rely on historical records of stock-status information and access decisions, while social indicators rely on a mix of historical records and semi-structured interviews with traditional subsistence users. Historical records are characterized by adherence to information requirements directing access and our operationalization of “subsistence preference,” the legal requirement to allow preferential access to traditional users. We find that decisions to close, restrict, or allow fishing are moderately adherent to general policies. Nonetheless, populations are still declining. We find little evidence of honoring the specific requirement of subsistence preference. Interviews eliciting traditional users’ perceptions of decision-making processes and outcomes revealed themes of heartbreak, anxiety, and frustration. Results suggest a need to rethink management approaches and indicators. Restricting access appears far better than closure for traditional users and more consistent with subsistence preference requirements.

Policy-makers often commission formal analyses to estimate the costs, risks, and benefits of proposed projects or policies. Applications range from estimating the risks of commercial nuclear power, to setting priorities among environmental risks, to comparing technologies for generating electricity, to weighing the benefits and risks of prescription drugs. In the United States, analyses are required for all major federal regulations. Fischhoff reviews how such analyses are limited by the scientific and ethical judgments inherent in the process and require collaboration between those who generate the analyses and those who want to use them. Science , this issue p. 10.1126/science.aaa6516 Formal analyses can be valuable aids to decision-making if their limits are understood. Those limits arise from the two forms of subjectivity found in all analyses: ethical judgments, made when setting the terms of an analysis, and scientific judgments, made when conducting it. As formal analysis has assumed a larger role in policy decisions, awareness of those judgments has grown, as have methods for making them. The present review traces these developments, using examples that illustrate the issues that arise when designing, executing, and interpreting analyses. It concludes with lessons learned from the science and practice of analysis. One common thread in these lessons is the importance of collaborative processes, whereby analysts and decision-makers educate one another about their respective needs and capabilities.

The principal policy tool for respecting the preferences of patients facing serious illnesses that can prompt decisions regarding end-of-life care is the advance directive (AD) for health care. AD policies, decision aids for facilitating ADs, and clinical processes for interpreting ADs all treat patients as rational actors who will make appropriate choices, if provided relevant information. We review barriers to following this model, leading us to propose replacing the goal of rational choice with that of value awareness, enabling patients (and, where appropriate, their surrogates) to be as rational as they can and want to be when making these fateful choices. We propose approaches, and supporting research, suited to individuals’ cognitive, affective, and social circumstances, resources, and desires.