GRF · Information Integrity and Public Trust
Science communication
Science reaches the public through journals, press releases, media, social platforms and advisers to government. Along the way, uncertainty is dropped, preliminary results are presented as settled, and corrections lag. Good science communication states what is known, how confident scientists are and what would change their view. This page sets out how science communication works and fails, the records that show it, and who decides.
Science communication on the record.
Science communication: how the risk develops.
Uncertainty and honest communication. The dossier below sets out how the risk develops, what is measured, where the data come from, how it is modelled and who decides.
Uncertainty is lost in translation
Caveats in papers disappear in press releases and headlines. Calibrated language helps, but competition for attention pushes towards certainty.
Preprints move fast
Preprints share findings before peer review. They speed science and can spread unreviewed claims widely before errors are caught.
Corrections lag
Retractions and corrections arrive long after the original claim and reach fewer people. Retracted papers continue to be cited.
Messengers shape reception
Audiences weigh scientific claims by who delivers them and whether they fit prior beliefs. Engagement and listening matter as much as accuracy.
Narrative monitor.
The screen a team would use to follow this subject: its measures, states and decisions. Names are examples and values are illustrative.
Narrative monitor
Science communication · Crisis information cell · Week 34
Narratives
| Tap water poisoned after flood | 82 | High | False | Correction out |
| Shelters charging fees | 61 | Medium | False | Drafting |
| Dam about to fail | 78 | High | Checking | Holding line |
| Aid only for registered voters | 41 | Medium | False | Prebunked |
Spread
Response protocol
- Detectmonitor
- Verifyprovenance
- Assess harmthreshold
- Respondcorrect · prebunk
- Reporttransparency
What is measured, and how well.
Each indicator carries its unit, its cadence, the kind of source behind it and the evidence label a value would carry. No values are shown: a programme supplies them under its own authority.
| Indicator | Unit | Cadence | Source type | Label |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Retractions | count by field | annual | Retraction Watch Database | REPORTED |
| Citations of retracted papers after retraction | count | periodic | Bibliometric studies | ESTIMATED |
| Press releases with exaggeration | share in sampled releases | per study | Content analyses | ESTIMATED |
| Trust in scientists | share of respondents | periodic | Wellcome Global Monitor | ESTIMATED |
| Science advisory bodies publishing advice | count | on change | Government records | Published statistics |
| Preprints later published after peer review | share | per study | Bibliometric studies | ESTIMATED |
What tips a population into acting.
How the share of early movers and the thresholds people hold decide whether a protective behaviour, or a false narrative, stays local or spreads to most people. Teaching model with stated illustrative values, not a prediction.
Controls
- Mean threshold (share of neighbours)
- 18%
- Spread of thresholds
- 8 points
- Early movers
- 2.0% of people
- Contacts per person
- 8
Readouts
- Share who acted in the end
- 100%
- Global cascade
- Yes
- Steps to settle
- 12
Numbers, methods and sources
| Step | Share who have acted (%) |
|---|---|
| 0 | 1.8 |
| 1 | 5.8 |
| 2 | 15.8 |
| 3 | 30.3 |
| 4 | 45.8 |
| 5 | 59.5 |
| 6 | 72.8 |
| 7 | 84.0 |
| 8 | 91.0 |
| 9 | 96.0 |
| 10 | 99.8 |
| 11 | 100.0 |
| 12 | 100.0 |
Methods
- Threshold models of collective behaviour Granovetter (1978), American Journal of Sociology 83
- Global cascades on random networks Watts (2002), PNAS 99
- Complex contagions Centola and Macy (2007), American Journal of Sociology 113
- One-at-a-time sensitivity (tornado) Saltelli and others (2008), Global Sensitivity Analysis: The Primer, Wiley
Data
No observed data enters this model: it runs on the teaching values set by the controls, to be replaced with a programme's own evidence.
Across the six pillars, led by Nexus Consortium
- Experiments Labs
- Built in Information Integrity and Public Trust in Foundry
- Tested at Information Integrity and Public Trust in Universe
- Codified in Governance, Security and Society in Standards
- Published in Information Integrity and Public Trust in Reports
- Taught in Faculty of Governance, Policy and International Affairs in Academy
Where the evidence comes from.
Named public datasets and institutional records, each with its licence class. Sources by agreement are used only under their terms and never republished.
| Source | What it gives | Licence class |
|---|---|---|
| Retraction Watch Database | Retracted papers with reasons | Free to access via Crossref, terms to check |
| Crossref metadata | Publication, correction and retraction metadata | Metadata free, CC0 for most fields |
| Wellcome Global Monitor | Public trust in science | Free to read, terms to check |
| IPCC guidance on consistent treatment of uncertainties | Calibrated language for confidence and likelihood | Free, IPCC terms |
| INGSA records | International network of government science advice | Free to read, terms to check |
From mandate to evaluation, by pillar.
The steps an instrument takes from mandate to evaluation, each with the pillar that runs it, and the decisions that stay with the authority. Teaching model with stated illustrative values, not a prediction.
- Mandate and problem framing Competent authority (outside the programme)
A competent authority frames the problem and the mandate under its own rules. Howlett, Ramesh and Perl (2009) - Evidence and system model Foundry
The system is modelled with its feedbacks, data and stated limits. OECD (2014), principle 2 - Options appraised with scenarios Foundry
Instruments are compared under scenarios, with uncertainty shown. Hood (1983) - Exercise with stakeholders Universe
The options are tested in an exercise with those who would implement and bear them. OECD (2014), principle 3 - Standard or guidance drafted Nexus Standards
What works is codified as a standard or guidance, open to comment. Nexus Standards process - Decision by the authority Competent authority (outside the programme)
The authority decides, outside the programme, with the evidence on record. Howlett, Ramesh and Perl (2009) - Capacity and training Risk Academy
Those who implement are trained on the decided instrument and its data. Sendai Framework (2015), priority 2 - Monitoring and public report Reports
Indicators are published with sources, limits and corrections. OECD (2014), principle 5 - Evaluation and revision Nexus Standards
Results return to the standard and the model: the cycle closes. Howlett, Ramesh and Perl (2009)
Methods
- Policy cycle Howlett, Ramesh and Perl (2009), Studying Public Policy, Oxford University Press
- Governance of critical risks OECD (2014), Recommendation of the Council on the Governance of Critical Risks
- Layered drawing of directed graphs Sugiyama, Tagawa and Toda (1981), IEEE SMC 11
Across the six pillars, led by Nexus Consortium
- Experiments Labs
- Built in Information Integrity and Public Trust in Foundry
- Tested at Information Integrity and Public Trust in Universe
- Codified in Governance, Security and Society in Standards
- Published in Information Integrity and Public Trust in Reports
- Taught in Faculty of Governance, Policy and International Affairs in Academy
Who decides, and what the evidence serves.
Information Integrity and Public Trust prepares evidence. The decisions below are taken by the authorities named, under their own rules, and never by the platform.
| Who decides | The question | Evidence this page serves |
|---|---|---|
| Research institutions and press offices | How findings are announced and uncertainty stated | Evidence on exaggeration and its effects |
| Journals and preprint servers | How corrections and retractions are flagged | Retraction records and practice |
| Government science advisers | How advice and its uncertainty are published | Comparative advice systems |
| Newsrooms | How to report preliminary and contested science | Reporting guidelines and research |
Outputs this topic produces
- Guide to calibrated uncertainty language
- Comparative notes on science advice systems and transparency
- Dialogue briefs on preprints in public debate
- Questions for institutions on correcting the record
How science communication is governed: instruments, mandates and commitments.
The instruments, mandates, actors and accountability arrangements a policymaker, diplomat or development agency works with, citing the agreements that set them. Structures follow the frameworks named. Any state or progress drawn is illustrative, not a record.
Accountability cycle
How commitments on science communication are held to account, from commitment to correction.
- CommitGovernmentA commitment with a mandate and a legal basis.
- PlanLead agencyA national plan with owners and milestones.
- ResourceMinistry of financeA budget line or financing on record.
- ImplementAgencies and local governmentDelivery against the plan.
- ReportStatistics officeIndicators reported in agreed definitions.
- ReviewLegislature, audit, civil societyIndependent review of results and gaps.
- CorrectGovernmentChanges to the plan, published with reasons.
What experts ask.
Science communication researchers ask how to be honest about uncertainty and still be useful.
- How should scientific uncertainty be communicated to non-specialist audiences?
- How does communicating changing evidence affect trust in science?
- How should disagreement among experts be presented?
- What responsibilities do scientists and institutions have when their findings are misused?
- How do values and identity shape how people receive scientific information?
Uncertainty, values and trust.
Research suggests that communicating uncertainty honestly, for example as ranges or likelihoods with explanation, generally has small effects on trust and can increase perceived credibility, while overstated certainty that later proves wrong damages it. How uncertainty is framed matters: numerical ranges, verbal terms and visual formats are understood differently by different audiences.
People interpret scientific information through their values and identities. When scientific issues become associated with political or cultural identity, evidence alone rarely changes minds. Communication that respects audiences, acknowledges values and comes from trusted messengers tends to be more effective than repeated assertion of facts.
Why now: scientists and public bodies communicate risk under more scrutiny and faster cycles than before, and uncertainty is easily misread. The platform is designed to convene communicators and scientists on how uncertainty is stated, and to test messages in exercises before they are needed.
How the evidence is built, and where it stops.
- 01
Experimental communication research
Testing formats for presenting uncertainty with social and behavioural science. Results vary by topic and audience.
- 02
Media content analysis
Studying how science is reported. Coverage varies across outlets and countries.
- 03
Survey research
Tracking trust in science over time. General trust differs from trust on specific topics.
- 04
Case studies
Examining communication during contested episodes. Hindsight can distort assessments.
How it is studied, and what the methods cannot say.
- 01Social and behavioural scienceMeasuring trust and exposure · Testing interventions · Qualitative study of information needsApplied here
- 02Network science and contagionDetecting coordinated behaviour · Tracing narrative spread · Mapping media ecosystemsApplied here
- 03Artificial intelligence and machine learningClassifier error in moderation · Synthetic media detection limits · Recommender auditsApplied here
Questions and answers.
What is calibrated uncertainty language?
Should the public read preprints?
Why are retracted papers still cited?
Does admitting uncertainty reduce trust in science?
Should experts present a single consensus view?
Does GRF communicate science on behalf of GCRI?
Contribute evidence from this page.
Reports is the Consortium's quarterly publication. What you know about this subject can become evidence, a case or a correction in the next edition, credited to you and published under CC BY 4.0 where it is your own work.
- EmailGateway GW-GRFSend it from this pageEvidence, a correction, a case, a method, a review, a translation or profile input. It arrives tagged with this page, so the editor who owns it receives it.
- ZenodoOpen depositDeposit it and submit to the communityPublish your own record on Zenodo with your ORCID iD, then submit it to the Reports community there. Curators review it; the DOI stays yours.
- ReportsGlobal Risks ForumSee every way to contributeThe contribution types, how each is reviewed, what credit you receive, the licence and what is never accepted.
Never send personal data, sensitive infrastructure detail or anything you have no right to share. A contribution is reviewed before use; sending it confers no authorship or editorial rights, and sponsorship never buys a finding.
Bring a governance question to the Forum.
Information and enquiries are open today. An enquiry receives a reference and names the next step; applications, payments, compute allocations and registrations open only when their team, terms and review capacity exist.
Legal documents.
Show all 18 legal documents
Maps, data and figures on this site are shown for context and general information. They are not advice, forecasts or warnings; the limits of the information are set out in the Disclaimers and Data Notices.