{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.017358490566037735, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.2843601895734595, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Understanding the receivers and the reception of science's uncertain messages

Although much work has been done by scientists in developing communications to non-scientist audiences, much less attention has been given by them to the ways in which those messages are interpreted. Here, I look at the published work that examines the issue. I focus on three contexts in particular: debates over the triple vaccine for measles, mumps and rubella, the impacts of the Soufrière Hills volcano on the inhabitants of the island of Montserrat and the public communication of the results of climate change research. Several common themes emerge. The most important conclusions are that scientists communicating with the public need to develop their methods deliberatively, involving their target audiences; and that they need to avoid undue dependence on traditional media and public authorities for such communication, and to develop multiple channels to those audiences, including Internet-based and more traditional social networks. Their approach to communicating uncertainty should depend on the context but, except in some extreme emergencies, transparency is generally a virtue. Above all, they need to persist in such public engagements even when the going is rough and extends over long periods. They need support in doing so.