A review of the book Communicating Uncertainty: Media Coverage of New and Controversial Science (Sharon M. Friedman, Sharon Dunwoody & Carol L. Rogers, eds.; Lawrence Erlbaum Associates 1999). Preface, introduction. ISBN 0-8058-2728-5 [261 pp. $32.50. Paperback, 10 Industrial Avenue, Mahwah, NJ 07430-2262]

Howard, Daniel D.

English

University of New Hampshire

RISK: Health, Safety & Environment (1990-2002)
Volume 11 | Number 3 Article 12
June 2000
Review of: Sharon M. Friedman et al. eds.,
Communicating Uncertainty
Daniel D. Howard
Follow this and additional works at: https://scholars.unh.edu/risk
Part of the Communication Commons
This Book Review is brought to you for free and open access by the University of New Hampshire – School of Law at University of New Hampshire
Scholars' Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in RISK: Health, Safety & Environment (1990-2002) by an authorized editor of University of
New Hampshire Scholars' Repository. For more information, please contact ellen.phillips@law.unh.edu.
Repository Citation
Daniel D. Howard, Review of: Sharon M. Friedman et al. eds., Communicating Uncertainty, 11 RISK 263 (2000).
Review of: Sharon M. Friedman et al. eds., Communicating Uncertainty
Erratum
The citation for this review is 11 RISK 255 (2000) in most commercial databases.
This book review is available in RISK: Health, Safety & Environment (1990-2002): https://scholars.unh.edu/risk/vol11/iss3/12
Book Reviews 263
Communicating Uncertainty: Media Coverage of New and
Controversial Science (Sharon M. Friedman, Sharon Dunwoody &
Carol L. Rogers, eds.; Lawrence Erlbaum Associates 1999). Preface,
introduction. ISBN 0-8058-2728-5 [261 pp. $32.50. Paperback, 10
Industrial Avenue, Mahwah, NJ 07430-2262].
Traditionally, scientific inquiry has focused on the positive resiilts of
research with the ultimate goal of revealing proven or provable truth
about our universe. Communicating Uncertainty provides a meaningful
counterpoint to this traditional analysis by examining scientific pursuits
from the perspective of the gaps remaining in our collective knowledge
after a given scientific inquiry, and how we manage and convey that
information. Through a collection of independently authored chapters,
the book examines the manner in which these gaps in scientific
knowledge define and explain the positive output of science.
Although the book is comprised of individual chapters penned by
various authors, the chapters are more internally consistent than is
frequently the case in collections of individual essays. The editors
establish their themes in the introduction, including some useful
definitions, and the chapters following tend to adhere closely to those
themes. For example, the primary recurring theme in the book centers
on the three essential classes of participants in the scientific discourse:
scientists, journalists, and the public. This theme recurs throughout the
subjects discussed within each chapter. Each of the three major sections
of the book concludes with a panel discussion of the topics introduced
by the previous chapters; here again the "three participant" theme
resounds, as the members of the panels are the respective participants in
the scientific discourse (scientists, journalists, the public).
Within this framework of competing interests, the various authors
make some illuminating points about how the different classes use
uncertainty to their respective advantages. Scientists use uncertainty to
both legitimatize their conclusions, by avoiding the appearance of
overzealousness, and to suggest the need for continuing research, thus
providing the scientists with job security. 1 Journalists tend to downplay
1 See Communicating Uncertainty. Media Coverage of New and Controversial Science 12-
13 (Sharon M. Friedman et al. eds. 1999).
11 Risk. Health, Safety & Environment 263 [Summer 2000]
uncertainty in their quest for supportable facts, 2 though they
occasionally suggest more uncertainty than would the scientists. 3 Thus,
the public is left with the need to discern usable truth from the various
claims stated, and must actively negotiate these conflicting claims so as
to make sense of the uncertainly presented. 4 The bulk of the book
discusses the interrelationships among these groups.
The authors effectively use examples to illustrate their claims. In
addition to examples based on "hard" scientific inquiry into
mainstream topics such as dioxin and acid rain, the authors use simple
examples of statistical analysis to illustrate the importance of accurate
representations of error and uncertainty. One such example is a
journalistic investigation into parents' suspicions that their children are
being disproportionately burdened (literally) by their school's
homework requirements, resulting in excessively heavy backpacks and
the consequent danger of back injuries. 5 Although the journalists'
results support the parents' claims, the authors reveal errors in the
"scientific" methods used: backpacks were not randomly sampled but
were subjectively chosen by the reporters, leaving open the possibility of
drastically skewed results. This simple example illustrates how data
manipulation can alter the perceived uncertainty of the resulting
conclusions.
Consistent with the overlying theme of three classes of participants
in the scientific discourse, the panel discussions included at the end of
each major section of the book include representatives of the scientific
community, journalism, and the public. However, this representative
participation is somewhat artificial because of the difficulty in defining
"the public." As a result, the "public" representatives tend to be
scientists and journalists playing the role of public advocate. As long as
the reader bears in mind that the views expressed as representing the
public are to some extent artificially formulated, she will not be misled
by those views. The reader, a member of "the public," is always free to
interpret the discussions from her personal perspective.
2 See id. at 24-27.
3 See id. at 28-30.
4 See id. at 55.
5 See id, at 237-39.
Book Reviews 265
The greatest shortcoming of Communicating Uncertainty is its lack
of a unifying conclusion. The editors intended to provide a broad-
reaching analysis of this narrowly focused aspect of scientific discourse,
and they did so effectively by bringing in diverse voices to present
various analyses. However, without a unifying conclusion, the reader
must retrace her steps through the various chapters and the
introductory material to draw her conclusions. Despite this
shortcoming, the book provides an effective introduction to the less
frequently examined aspects of scientific discourse to help shape our
available knowledge.
Daniel D. Howardt
t Mr. Howard is a graduate of Franklin Pierce Law Center (J.D. 2000). He also holds a B.S.
(Hospitality Administration) from Florida State University and a B.A. (English) from North
Carolina State University.
11 Risk. Health, Safety & Enviromnent 263 [Summer 2000]



Review of: Sharon M. Friedman et al. eds., Communicating Uncertainty

UNH Scholars' Repository

RISK: Health, Safety & Environment (1990-2002)Volume 11 | Number 3 Article 12June 2000Review of: Sharon M. Friedman et al. eds.,Communicating UncertaintyDaniel D. HowardFollow this and additional works at: https://scholars.unh.edu/riskPart of the Communication CommonsThis Book Review is brought to you for free and open access by the University of New Hampshire – School of Law at University of New HampshireScholars' Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in RISK: Health, Safety & Environment (1990-2002) by an authorized editor of University ofNew Hampshire Scholars' Repository. For more information, please contact ellen.phillips@law.unh.edu.Repository CitationDaniel D. Howard, Review of: Sharon M. Friedman et al. eds., Communicating Uncertainty, 11 RISK 263 (2000).Review of: Sharon M. Friedman et al. eds., Communicating UncertaintyErratumThe citation for this review is 11 RISK 255 (2000) in most commercial databases.This book review is available in RISK: Health, Safety & Environment (1990-2002): https://scholars.unh.edu/risk/vol11/iss3/12Book Reviews 263Communicating Uncertainty: Media Coverage of New andControversial Science (Sharon M. Friedman, Sharon Dunwoody &Carol L. Rogers, eds.; Lawrence Erlbaum Associates 1999). Preface,introduction. ISBN 0-8058-2728-5 [261 pp. $32.50. Paperback, 10Industrial Avenue, Mahwah, NJ 07430-2262].Traditionally, scientific inquiry has focused on the positive resiilts ofresearch with the ultimate goal of revealing proven or provable truthabout our universe. Communicating Uncertainty provides a meaningfulcounterpoint to this traditional analysis by examining scientific pursuitsfrom the perspective of the gaps remaining in our collective knowledgeafter a given scientific inquiry, and how we manage and convey thatinformation. Through a collection of independently authored chapters,the book examines the manner in which these gaps in scientificknowledge define and explain the positive output of science.Although the book is comprised of individual chapters penned byvarious authors, the chapters are more internally consistent than isfrequently the case in collections of individual essays. The editorsestablish their themes in the introduction, including some usefuldefinitions, and the chapters following tend to adhere closely to thosethemes. For example, the primary recurring theme in the book centerson the three essential classes of participants in the scientific discourse:scientists, journalists, and the public. This theme recurs throughout thesubjects discussed within each chapter. Each of the three major sectionsof the book concludes with a panel discussion of the topics introducedby the previous chapters; here again the "three participant" themeresounds, as the members of the panels are the respective participants inthe scientific discourse (scientists, journalists, the public).Within this framework of competing interests, the various authorsmake some illuminating points about how the different classes useuncertainty to their respective advantages. Scientists use uncertainty toboth legitimatize their conclusions, by avoiding the appearance ofoverzealousness, and to suggest the need for continuing research, thusproviding the scientists with job security. 1 Journalists tend to downplay1 See Communicating Uncertainty. Media Coverage of New and Controversial Science 12-13 (Sharon M. Friedman et al. eds. 1999).11 Risk. Health, Safety & Environment 263 [Summer 2000]uncertainty in their quest for supportable facts, 2 though theyoccasionally suggest more uncertainty than would the scientists. 3 Thus,the public is left with the need to discern usable truth from the variousclaims stated, and must actively negotiate these conflicting claims so asto make sense of the uncertainly presented. 4 The bulk of the bookdiscusses the interrelationships among these groups.The authors effectively use examples to illustrate their claims. Inaddition to examples based on "hard" scientific inquiry intomainstream topics such as dioxin and acid rain, the authors use simpleexamples of statistical analysis to illustrate the importance of accuraterepresentations of error and uncertainty. One such example is ajournalistic investigation into parents' suspicions that their children arebeing disproportionately burdened (literally) by their school'shomework requirements, resulting in excessively heavy backpacks andthe consequent danger of back injuries. 5 Although the journalists'results support the parents' claims, the authors reveal errors in the"scientific" methods used: backpacks were not randomly sampled butwere subjectively chosen by the reporters, leaving open the possibility ofdrastically skewed results. This simple example illustrates how datamanipulation can alter the perceived uncertainty of the resultingconclusions.Consistent with the overlying theme of three classes of participantsin the scientific discourse, the panel discussions included at the end ofeach major section of the book include representatives of the scientificcommunity, journalism, and the public. However, this representativeparticipation is somewhat artificial because of the difficulty in defining"the public." As a result, the "public" representatives tend to bescientists and journalists playing the role of public advocate. As long asthe reader bears in mind that the views expressed as representing thepublic are to some extent artificially formulated, she will not be misledby those views. The reader, a member of "the public," is always free tointerpret the discussions from her personal perspective.2 See id. at 24-27.3 See id. at 28-30.4 See id. at 55.5 See id, at 237-39.Book Reviews 265The greatest shortcoming of Communicating Uncertainty is its lackof a unifying conclusion. The editors intended to provide a broad-reaching analysis of this narrowly focused aspect of scientific discourse,and they did so effectively by bringing in diverse voices to presentvarious analyses. However, without a unifying conclusion, the readermust retrace her steps through the various chapters and theintroductory material to draw her conclusions. Despite thisshortcoming, the book provides an effective introduction to the lessfrequently examined aspects of scientific discourse to help shape ouravailable knowledge.Daniel D. Howardtt Mr. Howard is a graduate of Franklin Pierce Law Center (J.D. 2000). He also holds a B.S.(Hospitality Administration) from Florida State University and a B.A. (English) from NorthCarolina State University.11 Risk. Health, Safety & Enviromnent 263 [Summer 2000]

https://scholars.unh.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1439&amp;context=risk

Review of: Sharon M. Friedman et al. eds., Communicating Uncertainty

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

University of New Hampshire

UNH Scholars' Repository