Final report: Clear Communications and Uncertainty

Abstract

This report presents the results from an exploratory study in 2016 on clear communication of scientific assessment results. It had a specific focus on the communication of scientific uncertainties in EFSA scientific opinions. Qualitative methods were applied to the design and communication of an opinion summary and uncertainty statements related to that opinion, and to collect evidence on how different stakeholder groups responded to them. The study tested the Clear Communication Index (CCI) tool, using it to elaborate a simplified opinion summary and then seeking stakeholder views on the latter. The study then focused on stakeholder views on uncertainty statements, and particularly on (i) whether and how the information was understood, (ii) how uncertainty information influenced risk perceptions and (iii) confidence in EFSA, and (iv) which uncertainty information was useful to stakeholders and how. The study as a whole involved the use of desk research, questionnaires, and focus groups. It engaged representatives of five stakeholder groups -political decision-makers, technical decision-makers, industry, NGOs, and the informed public. Findings indicate that the CCI tool/approach may be applicable to EFSA's communication materials and may help improve clarity of message. The study provided insights on uncertainty communication at EFSA and how it may be received, understood, and used by EFSA's audiences. Given the exploratory nature of the study, further research with larger samples of consultees is needed to assess the generalizability of those insights.

Guidance on Communication of Uncertainty in Scientific Assessments

“…EFSA commissioned a focus group study in 2016 (Etienne et al., ) and carried out its own follow‐up multilingual online survey in 2017 (EFSA, ) that represented the early development phase of the Communication GD. The studies provided indications of target audience perspectives of the usefulness of uncertainty information, the impact of language, culture and professional background, and on audiences’ understanding of and/or preferences for messages describing four types of expressions of uncertainty.…”

“…strongly agree, agree, disagree, strongly disagree). The full list of questions is available in the report (Etienne et al., ). An overview of the key questions follows below: To what extent do you agree or not with the following statement: ‘It is normal that scientific advice is subject to a degree of uncertainty’? Having read the summary of EFSA's opinion, how much confidence do you have in EFSA to give you accurate information about the risk to human health posed by T‐2 and HT‐2? Considering that additional piece of information, how likely do you think it is that any toddler will experience ill health caused by T‐2 and HT‐2? How does this additional piece of information influence how much confidence you have in EFSA to give you accurate information about the risk to human health posed by T‐2 and HT‐2? On a scale from 1 to 4 (1 = strongly agree; 4 = strongly disagree), please indicate whether you find this statement: Understandable; Informative; or Useful. …”

“…As EFSA completed its research activities on communication of uncertainties to different target audiences (EFSA, ; Etienne et al., ), the Scientific Committee proposed to develop a separate Guidance document on communication of uncertainty in scientific assessments (henceforth ‘Uncertainty Communication GD’). The Scientific Committee considered that the significance of the research results and the different purpose, scope and target of the communication methodology warranted a stand‐alone document for communication practitioners.…”

Outcome of the Public Consultation on the draft Guidance on Communication of Uncertainty in Scientific Assessments

“…In fact, the study [4] which they cite in the guidance document [1] examines how focus groups made up of different expertise (Political decision-makers, Technical policy-makers, NGOs and civil society groups, Industry representatives, Industry representatives) respond to the differently phrased statements communicating uncertainty around a mock risk assessment. Then the study [4] ask experts (EFSA don't specify precisely what type of expertise they have -see line 1544 in the guidance document on uncertainty communication) to evaluate statements (by ranking them) according to clarity. So, the evidence base that EFSA use that they commissioned doesn't necessarily support the claims they are making in their [1] and [2], if one carefully reads the supporting evidence cited in [1].…”

“…So, the evidence base that EFSA use that they commissioned doesn't necessarily support the claims they are making in their [1] and [2], if one carefully reads the supporting evidence cited in [1]. Then the study [4] ask experts (EFSA don't specify precisely what type of expertise they have -see line 1544 in the guidance document on uncertainty communication) to evaluate statements (by ranking them) according to clarity. What this says is that the issue isn't how to communicate uncertainties, the issue is how to change attitudes amongst certain experts (e.g., Political decision-makers) that ought to pay attention to uncertainties, but do not [3].…”