Navigating the "bread and butter" of science: How researchers communicate uncertainties

Research | Media | Publications

A recent study by communication researchers Claire Roney, Jana Laura Egelhofer, and Sophie Lecheler examines how scientists conceptualize and communicate scientific uncertainty within an increasingly politicized and mediatized environment.

AI-generated

Through 28 semi-structured qualitative interviews with a diverse cohort of academic researchers in Austria, the authors explored how scientists navigate the balance of translating complex research for the media and the public. The researchers found that while scientists are highly motivated to share the uncertainties inherent in their work, they routinely encounter systemic barriers. Uncertainties are often perceived as too complex for large audiences and unwanted in a fast-paced media landscape that demands definitive answers. They also perceive it as highly risky to communicate uncertainties in polarized public debates where their words can be weaponized or lead to personal harassment.
 


by Aline Vianne Barr
 

For contemporary researchers, communicating science is no longer just about sharing discoveries; it has become a complex social contract shaped by political expectations, media demands, and public scrutiny. Uncertainty is a fundamental feature, the "bread and butter", of the scientific process, representing knowledge gaps, statistical limitations, and academic debate. However, failing to communicate these nuances transparently can lead to false public reassurance and ultimately damage long-term societal trust when scientific consensus naturally shifts, making it critical to understand how scientists negotiate their roles as objective researchers and public communicators in an era of heightened science skepticism.

In order to understand the mechanisms behind how uncertainty is communicated, the authors examined how scientists define uncertainty and external systemic pressures. The study maps how scientists' internal conceptualizations of uncertainty align with four theoretical dimensions (previously conceptualized in extant studies): technical uncertainty, which involves numeric and statistical limitations like standard errors; deficient uncertainty, representing the "known unknowns" and research design limitations; consensus uncertainty, which covers disagreements or conflicting interpretations among peers; and scientific uncertainty, which represents the overarching, unsettled, and cumulative nature of science as a whole. Simultaneously, scientists must communicate in environments that are increasingly mediatized and politicized, affecting their practice. Findings reveal a translation issue: while scientists internally categorize uncertainty into these distinct dimensions, the pressure to adapt to media logic forces them to simplify these nuances. Consequently, to prevent public misinterpretation or exploitation by political actors, scientists often simplify complex technical uncertainties into a singular, generalized message of "unknowing".

  • Scientists frequently worry that communicating uncertainty will harm attitudes toward science, but empirical evidence has not found such effects and the consequences of not communicating uncertainty to the public appear worse.
    Study author Claire Roney

The empirical data for this study was collected through semi-structured interviews with 28 academic researchers actively engaged in public outreach in Austria, representing a variation of scientific disciplines including the natural, computational, social, behavioral, and humanities fields. The interviews were conducted between September 2024 and February 2025, containing accounts of how scientists across different epistemological backgrounds interact with journalists and cope with the personal and professional risks of public science communication. The results show that scientists' conceptual definitions of uncertainty heavily influence how they present their work to the public. While researchers in the natural and computational sciences primarily view uncertainty as a technical or statistical issue, social sciences and humanities scholars also interact with qualitative, consensus-based, and interpretive forms of uncertainty. However, when translating their research for journalists or large audiences, these nuanced definitions largely collapse, and scientists feel compelled to present definitive "success stories" because the media environment relies on short and clear-cut answers. One participant highlighted this, noting that if they include uncertainty, people become overly uncertain, but if they omit it, people become overly certain, meaning they fail either way.

The study highlights how the fear of politicization actively discourages transparent communication, as scientists worry that highlighting unknowns will be weaponized by actors to fuel misinformation, discredit scientific institutions, or trigger personal online harassment. It concludes that navigating public communication may be pushing many scientists into a protective crouch, where avoiding or downplaying uncertainty becomes a survival strategy rather than a scientific choice. While open science and digital platforms offer new pathways for direct audience engagement, they lack the structural safeguards needed to protect researchers from backlash. Furthermore, the findings expose an internal divide within academia itself, as social science and humanities scholars frequently grapple with academic exceptionalism from "hard science" colleagues who fail to recognize the validity of qualitative uncertainties. Ultimately, the researchers and participants of the study suggested that institutions must invest in public relations and communication training for the scientific community, support independent science journalism, and build support mechanisms to help scientists safely share the evolving nature of their work.


Study author Claire Roney concludes that scientists frequently worry that communicating uncertainty will harm attitudes toward science, but empirical evidence has not found such effects and the consequences of not communicating uncertainty to the public appear worse. We understand that most scientists are expected to communicate without training or a system to recognize their communication as an additional responsibility to teaching, researching and other administrative tasks, and that institutions often do not protect scientists against hostile and uncivil reactions. Alongside other scholars, we support that scientists should receive training to help them translate complex topics into an understandable way for the public that addresses both uncertainty and the relevance of their findings together, and we hope this research helps in that effort.

Back