See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/329214406

Evaluating science communication

Article  in  Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · November 2018

DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1805863115

CITATIONS READS

72 941

1 author:

Baruch Fischhoff
Carnegie Mellon University
495 PUBLICATIONS   48,727 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Consent and Informed Consent View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Baruch Fischhoff on 10 December 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 COLLOQUIUM
PAPER
Evaluating science communication
Baruch Fischhoffa,b,1
a
Department of Engineering and Public Policy, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA 15213; and bInstitute for Politics and Strategy, Carnegie Mellon
University, Pittsburgh, PA 15213

Edited by Dietram A. Scheufele, University of Wisconsin–Madison, Madison, WI, and accepted by Editorial Board Member May R. Berenbaum October 4, 2018
(received for review June 18, 2018)

Effective science communication requires assembling scientists with this characterization, like Simon’s distinction (5, 6), is a heuristic
knowledge relevant to decision makers, translating that knowledge one. It captures some general features while breaking down in
into useful terms, establishing trusted two-way communication ways that reveal the communities’ need for one another.
channels, evaluating the process, and refining it as needed. Com- Scientists’ bounded rationality entails ignoring issues that they
municating Science Effectively: A Research Agenda [National cannot treat systematically, hoping to reach strong conclusions
Research Council (2017)] surveys the scientific foundations for within their discipline’s self-imposed constraints. Scientists from
accomplishing these tasks, the research agenda for improving them, different disciplines struggle to collaborate, because they bound
and the essential collaborative relations with decision makers and problems differently. Experimental researchers may be uncom-
communication professionals. Recognizing the complexity of the fortable with unruly field observations. Field researchers may
science, the decisions, and the communication processes, the report question the artificial conditions of experiments. Both may puzzle
calls for a systems approach. This perspective offers an approach to over computational models, while modelers may have little pa-
creating such systems by adapting scientific methods to the practical tience for the simplification of experiments or the qualitative ev-
constraints of science communication. It considers staffing (are the idence of field research. Scientists who study individuals may not
right people involved?), internal collaboration (are they talking to know what to do with the context provided by those who study

SUSTAINABILITY
one another?), and external collaboration (are they talking to other
groups or cultures, who may shake their heads at being ignored.
Each discipline owes its success to its tacit knowledge of how to

SCIENCE
stakeholders?). It focuses on contexts where the goal of science
work within its bounds. Those bounds can be so incommensu-
communication is helping people to make autonomous choices
rable that scientists from different disciplines struggle even to
rather than promoting specific behaviors (e.g., voter turnout, vacci-
agree about how to disagree (7, 8). Nonetheless, as argued by
nation rates, energy consumption). The approach is illustrated with
Communicating Science Effectively: A Research Agenda (1), the
research in two domains: decisions about preventing sexual assault
success of science communication depends on collaboration
and responding to pandemic disease.
across disciplines.
Practitioners’ satisficing entails paying attention to anything
science communication | evaluation | decision making | pandemics | that might be relevant and accepting imperfect solutions. Prac-
sexual assault titioners of different persuasions struggle to collaborate, because
they have different skills and norms. Those skills might include

C ommunicating science effectively can require an unnatural

act: collaboration among experts from professional com-
munities with different norms and practices. Those experts in-
designing visual materials, crafting text, attracting media atten-
tion, convening stakeholders, and branding programs. Those
norms might include how relevant they find social science evi-
clude scientists who know the subject matter and scientists who dence, whether they subscribe to a design philosophy, and what
know how people communicate. They include practitioners who their professional code of ethics is. Their organizing design
know how to create trusted two-way communication channels constructs maybe so different that they effectively speak different
and practitioners who know how to send and receive content languages. Nonetheless, as argued in Communicating Science
through them. They also include professionals who straddle Effectively: A Research Agenda (1), serving diverse audiences and
these worlds, such as public health officials managing pandemics decisions requires practitioners with diverse expertise.
and climate scientists defending their work. Communicating When these two worlds fail to connect, each is the worse for it.
Science Effectively: A Research Agenda (1) calls for a systems Scientists can overestimate how far their results generalize and
approach to recruiting and coordinating individuals with these offer practitioners unsupported advice or summaries. Practi-
skills and connecting them with those whom they might serve tioners can absorb a fragment of science and exaggerate its value.
(ref. 1, pp. 8 and 84–86). Scientists can unwittingly or naively let their values color their
This perspective offers an approach to answering that call. It research or expositions. Practitioners can selectively pursue or
is grounded in the research presented in the report and at accept convenient truths. Conversely, the two worlds support
the National Academies’ Colloquia on the Science of Science one another when they do connect, with practitioners help-
Communication (2–4). It is designed to accommodate the lim- ing scientists to identify the results that matter to their audi-
ited resources of many organizations engaged in science com- ences and scientists helping practitioners to structure those
munication. To that end, it proposes simplified versions of interactions (9–11).
scientific methods that should degrade gracefully in practical
applications.
The approach’s conceptual framework is grounded in Herbert This paper results from the Arthur M. Sackler Colloquium of the National Academy of
Simon’s two general strategies (5, 6) for addressing complex Sciences, “The Science of Science Communication III” held November 16–17, 2017, at the
National Academy of Sciences in Washington, DC. The complete program and audio files
problems. One is “bounded rationality,” looking for the best of most presentations are available on the NAS Web site at www.nasonline.org/
possible solution to a manageable subset of a problem, while Science_Communication_III.
deliberately ignoring some aspects. The second is “satisficing,” Author contributions: B.F. wrote the paper.
looking for an adequate solution while considering all aspects.
The author declares no conflict of interest.
Both strategies rely on heuristics to identify potentially useful
strategies. With bounded rationality, heuristics indicate which This article is a PNAS Direct Submission. D.A.S. is a guest editor invited by the
Editorial Board.
aspects to ignore and how to optimize within those bounds. With
satisficing, heuristics indicate how to generate and evaluate in- Published under the PNAS license.
1
tegrative solutions. To a first approximation, scientists pursue Email: [email protected].
bounded rationality, whereas practitioners satisfice. However,

www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1805863115 PNAS Latest Articles | 1 of 6

 Ashby (12) introduced the term “requisite variety” to describe the health care system (27). They can ask when people lack the
solutions that were as complex as the problems that they address. cognitive competence or emotional strength for making decisions
It is a heuristic construct for systems without easily characterized (28). However, formal analyses require expressing all outcomes in
dimensions. However, it evokes the challenge facing a systems numeric terms (e.g., costs, risks) in order to compute expected
approach to science communication. The effort may fail unless outcomes. As a result, they privilege outcomes that are readily
the requisite sciences and practices are recruited and coordi- quantified. They also require skills that few organizations have or
nated. As a result, the present approach focuses on identifying can afford.
and connecting those needed elements. It recognizes that many A more feasible aspiration is to adopt the logic of analysis but
organizations may lack not only many of the requisite skills but not its mechanics. That is, define the terms of a decision pre-
also “absorptive capacity,” the expertise needed to recruit cisely enough that a technically adept analyst could “run the
potentially useful help (13). As a result, it concludes with a numbers” were the data available, but not require that to hap-
discussion of boundary organizations that can facilitate these pen. Creating an analytical model that is “computable,” in this
matches (14–16). sense, demands clear thinking but no calculations. As a result,
Thus, this proposal offers practical ways for organizations with anyone should be able to create and understand one (29). Such
limited material resources and expertise to use the sciences of qualitative formal models can serve parties with different needs.
science communication. It assumes that a systems approach Scientists can see where their boundedly rational evidence fits
needs both bounded rationality and satisficing. For the former, into the big picture. Practitioners can look for satisficing solu-
the approach asks whether a system has the right set of bounded tions, addressing the overall problem. Decision makers can
parts (disciplinary sciences). For the latter, it asks whether those readily check that their concerns have been addressed. Having
parts are connected so as to produce satisficing solutions. It clearly defined variables and relationships helps ensure that the
could be used to design systems or to audit them. Its methods parties are talking about the same things.
are, in part, simplified versions of those used in scientific re- One example of such a model is the benefit–risk framework of
search. It illustrates the approach with two cases studies, showing the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) (30, 31), created to
variants of these decisions and consultations. improve communication among the parties involved in evaluat-
ing pharmaceuticals and biologics. Those parties include FDA
Communication Goals technical reviewers and regulators, industry researchers and
Communication programs that seek to change observable be- managers, patients, and advocates. The framework has rows for
havior (e.g., voter turnout, energy consumption, immunization the five inputs to FDA’s regulatory decisions (medical condi-
rates) might be judged by their outcomes. However, as Com- tion, existing treatments, expected benefits, expected risks, and
municating Science Effectively: A Research Agenda (1) notes, how risks will be managed if the product is approved). The
sometimes outcomes are hard to observe (e.g., changes in values, framework has columns for FDA’s two bases for evaluating those
aesthetics, feelings of self-efficacy). Moreover, sometimes the inputs (science and law) and a narrative summary. Cell entries
goal is not to effect specific changes but to empower people to can be words or numbers and are meant to capture disagree-
make better informed choices. In such cases, successful com- ments and uncertainties, reflecting FDA’s philosophy of having
munications might lead to different behaviors for people with analysis inform rather than replace judgment (32).
different values or circumstances. Similarly spirited qualitative formal models are central to
In principle, a science communication’s success might be implementing the present proposal.
evaluated by whether it produced choices closer to the ones that
fully informed decision makers would make. Satisfying that A Theory of Change for Science Communication
condition is the goal (and ethical commitment) of libertarian Social programs often reflect a theory of change (33, 34), iden-
paternalist interventions, which try to manipulate individuals’ tifying the elements deemed necessary for success. Although
“choice architecture” toward such choices (17). Thus, employees each element might be the subject of boundedly rational theo-
are nudged to place their retirement savings in stocks only when ries, a theory of change is not a scientific theory. Rather, it is a
it has been determined that the expected financial returns out- satisficing proposal, expressing an integrative vision of how a
weigh the psychological costs of experiencing market corrections complex process works. The present proposal is a theory of
and the economic risks of being in one when funds are needed. change for science communication. It asks three questions.
Organ donation is made the default only for individuals whose
survivors will accept that choice without having had a family Staffing: Are the right people involved?
consultation (18). Social norms are invoked for health behaviors
Internal consultation: Are they talking effectively with one
(e.g., exercise, vaccinations, diet) only when people have the
resources to follow them and a safety net should things go wrong. another?
External consultation: Are they talking effectively with other
Analysis and Its Limits stakeholders?
In practice, however, such personalized decision analyses are
rare outside of medicine, where they have been conducted for The next section describes one complex decision of the sort
many conditions and treatments (19). So that these analyses can that effective science communication could inform. Subsequent
capture the full range of patient concerns, the field has invested sections offer ways to answer these three questions. Although
heavily in validated quality-of-life measures, patient cost esti- the questions are addressed in the order above, the process
mates, and utility assessments (20, 21). That research has guided itself could start anywhere and is inherently iterative. External
the design of interactive aids, which allow patients to select in- stakeholders could ask for help, triggering internal consultation
formation and examine its implications for their personal deci- that reveals missing skills. Staff could perceive a need, initiative
sions (22). It has also guided policy analyses, evaluating treatment a campaign, and, then, find themselves welcomed, rejected, or
protocols (23, 24). redirected (1, 9, 35).
Such formal decision analyses can reveal issues that more
casual analyses might miss. For example, they may find that a One Complex Decision
generally valued outcome (e.g., money, pain) does not matter in In a project that was pivotal to my own thinking, Lita Furby,
a specific decision, because it is similar for all options (25). Marcia Morgan, and I sought to aid decisions related to sexual
Formal analyses can show how seemingly technical definitions assault by better communicating relevant scientific evidence (36).
(e.g., “risk”) affect choices (26). They can frame ethical issues, The prompt for our work was observing the confident, universal,
such as whose preferences should shape policies—those who have and contradictory advice offered to women regarding whether
a condition (e.g., paralysis) or the general public, which supports to resist physically when attacked. After reviewing the (limited)

2 of 6 | www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1805863115 Fischhoff
 COLLOQUIUM
PAPER
evidence on the efficacy of self-defense measures, we concluded sensitivities, and collect feedback. Practitioners are also needed
that, if they knew research, women might differ in the strategies to manage the process, secure the relevant experts, and get them
that they chose. As a result, we needed to understand those talking with one another and external stakeholders. Without a
differences. As befits any communication project, we began by firm hand, normal group dynamics can lead to recruiting, re-
listening. Here, that entailed semistructured interviews with di- warding, and retaining people with similar backgrounds and
verse groups of women, men, and experts, eliciting their per- blind spots, who are overly comfortable talking to one another. A
spectives on both personal decisions (e.g., how to respond to an firm hand is also needed to let everyone offer opinions, while
assault) and societal ones (e.g., how to make assaults less likely). leaving ultimate authority to those most expert in a topic. That
These interviews revealed a rich decision space, with many will keep subject matter experts from editing for style rather than
possible options, outcomes, and uncertainties (37, 38). To struc- accuracy, social scientists from garbling the facts when trying to
ture that space, we created categories of options and outcomes, clarify them, and practitioners from spinning messages when the
seeking a level of granularity that would be useful to decision facts are needed.
makers. Within that structure, we summarized available research
on the effects of the options on the outcomes. Where the evidence Internal Consultation: Are They Talking Effectively with One Another?
was limited, as was usually the case, those limits were part of the Experts must combine their knowledge to realize its value. That
story. When uncertainty is great, advice in unproven. Unless those means jointly examining issues, connections between issues, and
limits are acknowledged, if things go badly, then decision makers the assumptions underlying those interpretations. Fig. 1 illus-
may bear the insult of blame and regret in addition to the injury trates a decision science tool for structuring such consultations
that occurred. Whatever they did, some “expert” had advised (44). A computable (i.e., nonnumeric) version of an influence
otherwise. diagram (45), it depicts actions as rectangles and uncertain var-
Given that uncertainty and the diversity of decision makers’ iables as ovals (gray if valued outcomes; white if intermediates).
circumstances, our project had no theory of change for encour- It was created to structure discussions at a meeting about the
aging specific behaviors among those concerned with sexual as- then-pending threat of H5N1 (avian flu). It has places for the
sault. However, we did have a theory of change for ourselves, science that could inform decisions faced by health officials,
structuring our efforts to inform those decisions. That engage- employers, parents, suppliers, and others, each wondering if and

SUSTAINABILITY
ment and subsequent ones have led to the theory of change that how to prepare for a possible pandemic. What should they ex-

SCIENCE
guides this proposal for implementing the recommendation of a pect regarding quarantine, home schooling, rationing, hospital
systems approach in Communicating Science Effectively: A closures, telecommuting, drug shortages, and social solidarity (or
Research Agenda (1). fracture)?
Translating science into such a decision-relevant form requires
Staffing: Are the Right People Involved? consultation on three levels. One is summarizing the science at
Effective science communications must contain the information each node (e.g., what quantities of antivirals will be available)
that recipients need in places that they can access and in a form and link (e.g., how effectively will vaccines reduce morbidity).
that they can use. Achieving those goals requires four kinds of The second is estimating interactions (e.g., how will morbidity
expertise (39). and mortality combine to affect social costs). The third is iden-
tifying contextual factors (sometimes called “index variables”)
Subject Matter Experts. The core of any science communication is that affect many model elements (e.g., is the society developed or
authoritative summaries of evidence relevant to decision makers’ developing) (40).
needs. That evidence may come from many sciences. For ex- Quantifying such models demands technical training and
ample, sexual assault decisions might be informed by results from material resources. However, sketching a model well enough to
psychology, sociology, criminology, and economics. Unless staff facilitate consultations only requires clear thinking and candid
have expertise in an issue or the capacity to absorb it (13), they conversation. To that end, before the H5N1 meeting, partici-
will have to ignore or guess at it (26, 40). pants completed a survey eliciting their beliefs about the issues in
Fig. 1 and several related models (46). The models were in-
Decision Scientists. Eager to share their knowledge, subject matter stantiated with scenarios to make their abstractions concrete.
experts may drown decision makers in facts that it would be nice The meeting and survey were anonymous so that participants
to know. Decision scientists can identify the facts that decision could work the problem without pressure to represent the firms
makers need to know. They can also characterize evidence or agencies in which many held senior positions. They were
quality, estimate decision sensitivity, and reveal hidden assump- drawn from public health, technology, and mass media; hence,
tions (16, 17, 30, 31). For example, a sensitivity analysis of the they could offer their views on the needs and responses of publics
decision faced by a young academic might conclude that “there that they might support in a pandemic, but typically know in
is no sure way to prevent a powerful figure in your field from more benign circumstances.
destroying your career.” A decision analysis of sexual assault These scientists and practitioners were brought together be-
advice might conclude that “it ignores restrictions on your cause interpreting such evidence requires actual conversation. It
freedom.” is not enough for members of one field to read the publications
of another. Publications reflect their authors’ perspectives and
Social, Behavioral, and Communication Scientists. Knowing what to not those of their entire field. They omit assumptions that go
say does not guarantee knowing how to say it. Coupled with the without saying when scientists or practitioners write for colleagues
normal human tendency to overestimate mutual understanding or clients. For scientists, those assumptions include bounds on
(41), scientists’ intuitions can be a poor guide to effective com- their discipline’s rationality. For practitioners, they include ac-
munication. Indeed, scientists’ success in the classroom may cepted limits to satisficing solutions.
produce unrealistic expectations for being able to communicate One practical method for describing these internal consultations
with general audiences, with no examinations providing feedback is social network analysis, created by asking members of a com-
on their success. Communicating Science Effectively: A Research munication team to describe their relationships (47, 48). A suc-
Agenda (1) identifies the diverse expertise available for un- cessful team will have the requisite connections among those
derstanding audiences, crafting communications, and evaluating associated with each link and node in the relevant models. Fig. 2
success (2–4, 35, 42, 43). shows such relationships as revealed in self-reports of “close and
collegial relations” in a study of six interdisciplinary research centers
Program Designers and Managers. Finally, science communication (49). For this center, the study concluded that “most. . .interactions
needs practitioners to create channels, recruit stakeholders, are concentrated in a small core of researchers. . .Disciplines from
disseminate messages, mind legal constraints, anticipate cultural the physical sciences dominate the core. . ., environmental

Fischhoff PNAS Latest Articles | 3 of 6

 Vaccine
and
antiviral
strategies
Vaccine
efficacy Anti-viral
efficacy

Health
care costs

Rate of
spread

Morbidity

Mortality

Non-health care
economic costs

Action
node

Chance
node

Social
Outcome costs
node

Fig. 1. Risk model for pharmacological interventions for a pandemic. Ovals indicate uncertain variables, which need to be predicted. Rectangles indicate
actions, which need to be planned and implemented. Reprinted by permission from ref. 29, Springer Nature: Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, copyright 2006.

scientists/social scientists dominate the periphery” (ref. 49, p. 57). Our sexual assault project adopted one imperfect approach
A theory of change for a communication team would specify which (36–38). It asked nonrepresentative samples of individuals
members must talk with one another, with a diagram measuring its recruited from diverse groups to complete open-ended surveys,
success. Of course, even parties who view their relationships as close allowing them to choose the issues and describe them in their
and collegial may not identify and correct all misunderstandings. own terms. These surveys were followed by confirmatory struc-
tured ones with similarly sampled individuals. Although we en-
External Consultation: Are They Talking Effectively with Other gaged diverse individuals who revealed a wide range of views, the
Stakeholders? Scientific communicators seek to be trusted part- consultation was indirect. Our avian flu project involved two days
ners of people making decisions where science matters. In this of intense direct consultation, building on a preparatory survey.
issue of PNAS, those include decisions about gene drives (50), However, it was with a highly select group experienced in sam-
autonomous vehicles (51), employment (52), and energy (53). pling public opinion but not authorized to represent it.
Earning that trust means providing the science most relevant to The medical world, with its traditions of informed consent and
decision makers’ valued outcomes in comprehensible form and shared decision making (22–24, 28), offers examples that might
be adapted to other settings. For example, to secure patient in-
accessible places. Existing research is the natural source of initial
put to its benefit–risk framework (30, 31), FDA created the
guidance for accomplishing those tasks (1–4, 41–43, 54). Voice of the Patient Initiative (56), with daylong exchanges on
However good the research, communicators must still consult critical issues (e.g., chronic fatigue syndrome, sickle cell disease)—
with their external stakeholders. It is unrealistic to expect them a model that some patient groups have adopted. The desire to
to know how people very different from themselves view their include patient experiences in clinical trials led to including self-
world or the communicators (8, 41, 55). Even if those consul- reported quality-of-life measures as outcomes. However, the result
tations only affirm what the research says, they are important as was a proliferation of measures with varying content and quality
“speech acts.” They show respect for the stakeholders as indi- that undermined the research effort. In response, NIH created an
viduals worthy of knowing and hearing. They need to occur inventory of psychometrically validated measures, freely available
throughout the process to maintain the human contact and so online, with adaptive testing for efficient administration (20, 21).
that communicators know what is on stakeholders’ minds and Recognizing the importance of evaluating communications,
stakeholders know what communicators are doing (1, 9, 35, 39). Communicating Risks and Benefits: An Evidence-Based User’s
However, making that happen can be challenging, especially with Guide published by FDA (43) ends each chapter with guidance
diverse, dispersed, and disinterested publics. on evaluation for no resources, modest resources, and resources

4 of 6 | www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1805863115 Fischhoff
 COLLOQUIUM
PAPER
Discipline
= Astrophysics
= Environmental Chemistry
= Software Engineering
= Electrical Engineering
= Climate Change
= Meteorology
= (Bio)Geochemistry
= Paleoecology
= Enviro Sci Eng Policy
= Statistics
= Geographic Info Systems
= Enviro Soc Sci & Policy
= Resource Economics

Network Measures
Density = 63%
Cohesion = 1.4
Ave. Centrality = 11

SUSTAINABILITY
CENTER 1 CRN-T: shows all “close and collegial” connections by DISCIPLINE/FIELD based on responses to:

SCIENCE
“Please indicate the strength of your relationship with other center affiliates.”
Fig. 2. Network diagram of self-reported close and collegial relationships among members of an interdisciplinary research program supported by the
National Academy of Sciences. Reprinted with permission from ref. 49.

commensurate with the personal, economic, and political stakes facilitate commissioning analyses from professionals when
riding on good communication. It simplest method is the think- circumstances warrant and resources allow (59).
aloud protocol, asking people to say whatever comes into their These methods all assume a world where, in the words of
minds as they read draft materials (57, 58). Communicating Science Effectively: A Research Agenda (1), “re-
Any communication that goes to a broader audience consti- searchers and practitioners. . .form partnerships” and “re-
tutes an indirect consultation, as recipients assess their rela- searchers in diverse disciplines. . .work together” (ref. 1, p. 9).
tionships with its source, based on what they infer about its There are precedents for creating boundary organizations
competence and trustworthiness. Fig. 3 shows section headings hospitable to such partnerships (14–16). The American Soldier
from an attempt to create a relationship that neither abandons project during World War II brought together social scientists
recipients nor provides unsupportable advice. It was written and practitioners (60). The Medical Research Council Applied
when editors of a journal (American Psychologist) refused to Psychology Unit did the same in the United Kingdom (61), as
publish a review that was critical of much customary advice have the Department of Homeland Security Centers of Ex-
without providing an alternative. It was my hope that it would be cellence (https://www.dhs.gov/science-and-technology/centers-
seen as respecting and empowering recipients. excellence). The latest US National Climate Assessment was
developed in consultation with stakeholders (e.g., in agriculture
Conclusion
Science communications succeed when recipients make better
decisions. Applying that standard means evaluating the opti-
mality of choices made with and without the communications.
With complex decisions and diverse decision makers, such
evaluation is typically infeasible. The alternative is asking how
well the communication process has followed a theory of change.
The present proposal offers a theory of change embracing a
systems approach as advocated by Communicating Science Ef-
fectively: A Research Agenda (1). It entails staffing with the right
people, internal consultation among them, and external consul-
tation with those whom they seek to serve. It embraces both the
bounded rationality of disciplinary scientists and the satisficing of
practitioners.
Its proposed procedures rely on simplified versions of scien-
tific methods adapted for use by organizations with limited re-
sources. They include think-aloud protocols, network analyses,
and qualitative formal analyses, precise enough to allow
quantitative analysis were data requirements met, but not
requiring it. The proposal assumes that anyone can create,
critique, and discuss a decision space with options and valued
outcomes; an influence diagram with the factors determining
those outcomes (Fig. 1); and a social network depicting work
relations (Fig. 2). Adopting science-like methods should also Fig. 3. Advice for reducing the risk of sexual assault (36).

Fischhoff PNAS Latest Articles | 5 of 6

and transportation) (https://nca2014.globalchange.gov). The Na- scientific enterprise and its place in public discourse (11, 55, 62).
tional Science Foundation has supported multidisciplinary centers Scientists who share that sense of urgency may change the re-
in many domains, with strong public outreach requirements. ward structure in their disciplines, treating science communica-
A feature common to these ventures is a crisis that united sci- tion as a professional responsibility and valuing colleagues who
entists and practitioners against a common adversary, sometimes cultivate the commons of public goodwill on which science and
identifiable (e.g., the Axis Powers) and sometimes diffuse (e.g., society depend. Those scientists will promote the most relevant
threats to the environment). The urgent tone of Communicating science, even it is not their own. They will allow evidence from
Science Effectively: A Research Agenda (1) implies a crisis in com- the sciences of communication to inform, and perhaps even re-
municating science that is deep enough to impel partnerships. That fute, their intuitions regarding what to say and how to say it,
crisis threatens not only the usefulness of scientific results and thereby embracing the vision of Communicating Science Effec-
society’s return on investment in them, but also faith in the tively: A Research Agenda (1).

1. National Research Council (2017) Communicating Science Effectively: A Research 34. Taplin DH, Clark H (2012) Theory of change basics (ActKnowledge, New York).
Agenda (National Academy Press, Washington, DC). Available at www.theoryofchange.org/wp-content/uploads/toco_library/pdf/
2. Fischhoff B, Scheufele D (2013) The science of science communication. Proc Natl Acad ToCBasics.pdf. Accessed June 8, 2018.
Sci USA 110(Suppl 3):14033–14039. 35. Dietz T, Stern P, eds (2008) Public Participation in Environmental Assessment and
3. Fischhoff B, Scheufele D (2014) The science of science communication II. Proc Natl Decision Making (National Academy Press, Washington, DC).
Acad Sci USA 111(Suppl 4):13583–13584. 36. Fischhoff B (1992) Giving advice. Decision theory perspectives on sexual assault. Am
4. Fischhoff B, Scheufele D (2018) The science of science communication III. Proc Natl Psychol 47:577–588.
Acad Sci USA, in press. 37. Fischhoff B, Furby L, Morgan M (1987) Rape prevention: A typology and list of
5. Simon HA (1947) Administrative Behavior (Macmillan, New York). strategies. J Interpers Violence 2:292–308.
6. Simon HA (1956) Rational choice and the structure of the environment. Psychol Rev 38. Furby L, Fischhoff B, Morgan M (1991) Rape prevention and self-defense: At what
63:129–138. price? Womens Stud Int Forum 14:49–62.
7. Kahneman D, Klein G (2009) Conditions for intuitive expertise: A failure to disagree. 39. Fischhoff B (2013) The sciences of science communication. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 110:
Am Psychol 64:515–526. 14033–14039.
8. Medin D, Ojalehto B, Marin A, Bang M (2017) Systems of (non-)diversity. Nat Hum 40. Morgan MG (2017) Theory and Practice in Policy Analysis (Cambridge Univ Press, New
Behav 1:0088. York).
9. Dietz T (2013) Bringing values and deliberation to science communication. Proc Natl 41. Nickerson RA (1999) How we know—And sometimes misjudge—What others know:
Acad Sci USA 110:14081–14087. Imputing our own knowledge to others. Psychol Bull 125:737–759.
10. Scheufele DA (2013) Communicating science in social settings. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 42. Breakwell GM (2014) The Psychology of Risk (Cambridge Univ Press, Cambridge, UK),
110:14040–14047. 2nd Ed.
11. Scheufele DA (2014) Science communication as political communication. Proc Natl 43. Fischhoff B, Brewer N, Downs JS, eds (2011) Communicating Risks and Benefits: An
Acad Sci USA 111:13585–13592. Evidence-Based User’s Guide (Food and Drug Administration, Washington DC).
12. Ashby WR (1956) An Introduction to Cybernetics (Chapman & Hall, London). 44. Bruine de Bruin WB, Güvenç U, Fischhoff B, Armstrong CM, Caruso D (2009) Com-
13. Cohen WA, Levinthal DA (1990) Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on science municating about xenotransplantation: Models and scenarios. Risk Anal 29:
and innovation. Adm Sci Q 35:128–152. 1105–1115.
14. Bidwell D, Dietz T, Scavia D (2013) Fostering knowledge networks for climate adap- 45. Burns WJ, Clemen RT (1993) Covariance structure models and influence diagrams.
tation. Nat Clim Change 3:610–611. Manage Sci 39:816–834.
15. Guston DH (2001) Boundary organizations in environmental policy and science: An 46. Bruine De Bruin W, Fischhoff B, Brilliant L, Caruso D (2006) Expert judgments of
introduction. Sci Technol Human Values 26:399–408. pandemic influenza risks. Glob Public Health 1:178–193.
16. Parker JN, Crona BI (2012) On being all things to all people: Boundary organizations 47. Carley K, Prietula MJ (1994) Computational Organization Theory (Lawrence Erlbaum,
and the contemporary research university. Soc Stud Sci 42:262–289. Hillsdale, NJ).
17. Thaler R, Sunstein C (2009) Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth and 48. Moreno JL (1951) Sociometry, Experimental Method and the Science of Society
Happiness (Yale Univ Press, New Haven, CT). (Beacon House, Boston).
18. McCartney M (2017) Margaret McCartney: When organ donation isn’t a donation. 49. Hybrid Vigor Institute (2003) A multi-method analysis of the social and technical
BMJ 356:j1028. conditions for interdisciplinary collaboration (Hybrid Vigor Institute, San Francisco).
19. Schwartz A, Bergus G (2008) Medical Decision Making (Cambridge Univ Press, New Available at hybridvigor.net/interdis/pubs/hv_pub_interdis-2003.09.29.pdf. Accessed
York). May 10, 2018.
20. Cella D, et al.; PROMIS Cooperative Group (2007) The patient-reported outcomes 50. Brossard D, Belluck P, Gould F, Wirz CD (2018) Promises and perils of gene drives:
measurement information system (PROMIS): Progress of an NIH Roadmap cooperative Navigating the communication of complex, post-normal science. Proc Natl Acad Sci
group during its first two years. Med Care 45(Suppl 1):S3–S11. USA in press.
21. Health Measures (2018) Comprehensive measurement systems. Available at www. 51. Hancock PA, Nourbakhsh I, Stewart J (2018) On the future of transportation in an
healthmeasures.net/index.php/. Accessed October 24, 2018. era of automated and autonomous vehicles. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA, 10.1073/
22. The Ottawa Hospital Research Institute (2017) Patient decision aids. Available at pnas.1805770115.
https://decisionaid.ohri.ca/. Accessed October 24, 2018. 52. Davis GF (2018) How to communicate large-scale social challenges: The problem of
23. Basu A, Meltzer D (2007) Value of information on preference heterogeneity and in- the disappearing American corporation. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA, 10.1073/
dividualized care. Med Decis Making 27:112–127. pnas.1805867115.
24. Dewitt B, Davis A, Fischhoff B, Hanmer J (2017) An approach to reconciling competing 53. Bruine de Bruin W, Morgan MG (2018) Reflections on an interdisciplinary collabora-
ethical principles in aggregating heterogeneous health preferences. Med Decis tion to inform public understanding of climate change, mitigation, and impacts. Proc
Making 37:647–656. Natl Acad Sci USA, 10.1073/pnas.1803726115.
25. von Winterfeldt D (2013) Bridging the gap between science and decision making. 54. Kahneman D (2011) Thinking, Fast and Slow (Farrar Giroux and Strauss, New York).
Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 110:14055–14061. 55. Fiske ST, Dupree C (2014) Gaining trust as well as respect in communicating to mo-
26. Fischhoff B (2015) The realities of risk-cost-benefit analysis. Science 350:aaa6516. tivated audiences about science topics. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 111:13593–13597.
27. Versteegh MM, Brouwer WBF (2016) Patient and general public preferences for 56. Food and Drug Administration (2018) The voice of the patient: A series of reports
health states: A call to reconsider current guidelines. Soc Sci Med 165:66–74. from FDA’s Patient-Focused Drug Development initiative. Available at https://
28. Barnato AE (2017) Challenges in understanding and respecting patients’ preferences. www.fda.gov/ForIndustry/UserFees/PrescriptionDrugUserFee/ucm368342.htm. Ac-
Health Aff (Millwood) 36:1252–1257. cessed October 24, 2018.
29. Fischhoff B, Bruine de Bruin W, Guvenc U, Caruso D, Brilliant L (2006) Analyzing di- 57. Ericsson A, Simon HA (1990) Verbal Reports as Data (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA).
saster risks and plans: An avian flu example. J Risk Uncertain 33:131–149. 58. Merton RK (1987) The focussed interview and the focus group. Public Opin Q 51:
30. Food and Drug Administration (2013) Structured Approach to Benefit-Risk Assess- 550–566.
ment for Drug Regulatory Decision Making. Draft PDUFA V Implementation Plan. 59. National Research Council (2011) Intelligence Analysis for Tomorrow (National
FY2013–2017 (Food and Drug Administration, Washington, DC). Academy Press, Washington, DC).
31. Food and Drug Administration (2018) Benefit-Risk Assessment in Drug Regulatory 60. Lazarsfeld PF (1949) The American Soldier: An expository review. Public Opin Q 13:
Decision Making. Draft PDUFA VI Implementation Plan. FY2018–2022 (Food and Drug 377–404.
Administration, Washington, DC). 61. Reynolds LA, Tansey EM, eds (2003) The MRC Applied Psychology Unit. Wellcome
32. Fischhoff B (2017) Breaking ground for psychological science: The U.S. Food and Drug Witnesses to Twentieth Century Medicine (Wellcome Trust Centre for the History of
Administration. Am Psychol 72:118–125. Medicine at UCL, London), Vol 16.
33. Community Tool Box (2018) Learn a skill: Table of contents. Available at https://ctb.ku. 62. Lupia A (2013) Communicating science in politicized environments. Proc Natl Acad Sci
edu/en/table-of-contents. Accessed October 24, 2018. USA 110:14048–14054.

6 of 6 | www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1805863115 Fischhoff

View publication stats