Abstract
This article deals with scientific advice to the public where the relevant science is subject to public attention and uncertainty of knowledge. It focuses on a tension in the management and presentation of scientific uncertainty between the uncertain nature of science and the expectation that scientific advisers will provide clear public guidance. In the first part of the paper the tension is illustrated by the presentation of results from a recent interview study with nutrition scientists in Denmark. According to the study, nutrition scientists feel their roles as ‘‘public advisers’’ and ‘‘scientists’’ differ in that the former involves an expectation that they will provide unambiguous advice of the kind that might relegate scientific uncertainty to the background. In the second, more general, part of the paper we provide a normative analysis of different strategies of dealing with the tension. The analysis is structured around the extremes of either total concealment or full openness regarding scientific uncertainty. The result of analysis is that scientific advisers should not simply ‘‘feed’’ scientific conclusions to the public. They should rather attempt to promote the ability and willingness of the public to assess and scrutinize scientific knowledge by displaying uncertainties in the scientific basis of advice. On the other hand, scientific advisers must accommodate the public’s need for guidance. Such guidance should be restricted by careful consideration of what it is relevant for the public to know in order to evaluate scientific advice in practical terms.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Coffey, A., & Atkinson, P. (1996). Making sense of qualitative data. Complementary research strategies. California: Sage Publications, Inc.
Collins, H. M., & Evans, R. (2006). The third wave of science studies: Studies of expertise and experience. In E. Selinger & R. P. Crease (Eds.), The philosophy of expertise (pp. 39–110). New York: Columbia University Press.
Crabtree, B. F., & Miller, W. L. (1999). Using codes and code manuals: A template organizing style of interpretation. In B. F. Crabtree & W. L. Miller (Eds.), Doing qualitative research (pp. 163–178). California: Sage Publications, Inc.
Folker, A. P., Andersen, H., Emmeche, C., Norup, M., & Sandøe, P. (2006). Videnskabelig usikkerhed. In H. Andersen, C. Emmeche, M. Norup, & P. Sandøe (Eds.), Videnskabsteori for de biologiske fag (pp. 179–197). Frederiksberg: Biofolia.
Folker, A. P., Andersen, H., & Sandøe, P. (submitted(a)). Implicit normativity in scientific advice – values in nutrition scientists’ decisions to give public advice.
Folker, A. P., Holm, L., & Sandøe, P. (submitted(b)). Dilemmas in the public role of nutrition scientists: an interview study.
Gilchrist, V. J., & Williams, R. L. (1999). Key informant interviews. In B. F. Crabtree & W. L. Miller (Eds.), Doing qualitative research (pp. 71–88). California: Sage Publications, Inc.
Goldman, A. I. (2001). Experts: Which ones should you trust? Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 63(1), 85–110.
Green, L. W., & Glasgow, R. E. (2006). Evaluating the relevance, generalization, and applicability of research. Issues in external validation and translation methodology. Evaluation & the Health Professions, 29(1), 1–28.
Irwin, A., & Wynne, B., (Eds.) (1996). Misunderstanding science? The public reconstruction of science and technology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Jasanoff, S. (2003). (No) Accounting for expertise. Science and Public Policy, 30(3), 157–162.
Kagan, S. (1998). Normative ethics. Colorado: Westview Press.
Kaiser, M. (2005). Certainty and uncertainty in science. In L. Landeweerd, L. Houdebine, & R. Termeulen (Eds.), Biotechnology-ethics. An introduction (pp. 135–146). Firenze: IAAS – EDAP.
King, N. (2004). Using templates in the thematic analysis of text. In C. Cassell & G. Symon (Eds.), Essential guide to qualitative methods in organizational research (pp. 256–270). London: Sage Publications Ltd.
Kvale, S. (1996). InterViews. An introduction to qualitative research interviewing. California: Sage.
Levin, R. (2005). Uncertainty in risk assessment – contents and modes of communication. Licentiate Thesis in Philosophy. Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden.
Maasen, S., & Weingart, P. (2005). What’s new in scientific advice to politics. In S. Maasen & P. Weingart (Eds.), Democratization of expertise? Exploring novel forms of scientific advice in political decision-making (pp. 1–19). Dordrecht: Springer.
Miller, G. D., Cohen, N. L., Fulgoni, V. L., Heymsfield, S. B., & Wellman, N. S. (2006). From nutrition scientist to nutrition communicator: why you should take the leap. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 83, 1272–1275.
Rip, A. (1985). Experts in public arenas. In H. Otway & M. Peltu (Eds.), Regulating industrial risks (pp. 95–110). London: Butterworth & Co (Publishers) Ltd.
Rip, A. (1996). Expert advice and pragmatic rationality. In H. Nowotny & K. Taschwer (Eds.), The sociology of the sciences, vol. II (pp. 294–310). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Selinger, E., & Crease, R. P. (Eds.) (2006). The philosophy of expertise. New York: Columbia University Press.
Turner, S. (2001). What is the problem with experts? Social Studies of Science, 31(1), 123–149.
Turner, S. (2003). Liberal democracy 3.0. Civil society in an age of experts. London: Sage Publications Ltd.
Veatch, R. M. (1991). Consensus of expertise: The role of consensus of experts in formulating public policy and estimating facts. The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy, 16, 427–445.
Yearly, S. (2005). Making sense of science: Understanding the social study of science. London: Sage Publications Ltd.
Young, N., & Matthews, R. (2007). Experts’ understanding of the public: Knowledge control in a risk controversy. Public Understanding of Science, 16, 123–144.
Acknowledgements
For stimulating discussions and valuable comments on earlier versions of the article we would like to thank: Morten Andreasen, Kirsten Hansen, Klemens Kappel, Sigurd Lauridsen and Nete Schwennesen from BioCampus at the University of Copenhagen, Anne Mette Fruelund Andersen, Mickey Gjerris, Karsten Klint Jensen, Gitte Meyer from the Danish Centre for Bioethics and Risk Assessment at the University of Copenhagen, the entire Sociology Unit from the Institute of Human Nutrition at the University of Copenhagen and Kåre Nolde Nielsen from University of Tromsø. We are also grateful to two anonymous referees for useful critical advice. Finally, we would like to thank Paul Robinson for improving our English and giving editorial advice.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Folker, A.P., Sandøe, P. Leaping “Out of the Doubt”—Nutrition Advice: Values at Stake in Communicating Scientific Uncertainty to the Public. Health Care Anal 16, 176–191 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10728-007-0054-8
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10728-007-0054-8