Embracing uncertainty: How researchers can communicate the unknown with confidence

At Sense about Science, I work closely with the international community of early career researchers. In the workshops and discussions I lead, one topic comes up time and again — how to talk about uncertainty. While researchers grapple with uncertainty every day, many feel uneasy communicating about it beyond academia. Yet when we learn how to express uncertainty clearly and confidently, we can build greater trust and engagement while avoiding misunderstanding or misrepresentation.

Why uncertainty matters

In research, uncertainty isn’t a problem to solve but a reality to acknowledge. It helps us define confidence levels, estimate evidence gaps, and shape future inquiry. Research goes on precisely because we don’t know everything. On the other hand, outside of academia — such as in policy discussions, the media and public debate — uncertainty is often seen as a limitation.

These differences make it difficult to communicate the uncertainty of evidence, especially in high-stakes fields like climate adaptation, health policy or drug safety. As a result, uncertainty is sometimes downplayed or ignored because it gets in the way of a good headline or a definitive answer. In other cases, it can be overstated, as though a particular piece of research is worthless. However, with clear, confident communication, we can convey uncertainty not as a threat to credibility but as part of what makes research reliable and trustworthy.

Six steps to explaining scientific uncertainty

To help frame uncertainty constructively, we need to effectively communicate the following ideas.

1. Uncertainty doesn’t mean we know nothing.

New scientific knowledge usually involves greater uncertainty and needs to be looked at differently from settled science. We often don’t know how much of the picture new knowledge shows; however, it doesn’t mean we know nothing. While new evidence may not be definitive, it builds on what came before and helps guide us into further discovery.

2. Uncertainty is not a weakness of science.

Research is not done to prove things by showing there is no uncertainty. Instead, we seek the best explanations based on the best available evidence, constantly testing and refining theories.

3. Public confidence is not enhanced by overconfident statements.

It might feel counterintuitive, but communicating uncertainty clearly and honestly doesn’t undermine trust — it builds it. Overstating certainty can backfire if later findings shift the picture. By acknowledging what’s known, what’s not and what’s still being studied, we can demonstrate integrity and responsiveness.

4. Operational knowledge, not necessarily complete knowledge, is the goal.

The question is not, “Do we know everything?” It is ‘Do we know enough?” Or “How can we best make a decision using what we do know?” Newton’s law of gravity is still sufficient to get us to the moon and back despite not being a complete model of the way gravity works.

5. Uncertainty doesn’t mean anything could be true.

Uncertainty is used to express how confident we are about results, to indicate what we don’t yet know, or to characterize information that is by nature never black and white. It doesn’t mean that the research is unreliable. For example, when thinking about climate change, there are details about which we are extremely uncertain, but there is very little uncertainty over the big picture of serious warming and significant disruption for human societies.

6. Game-changers are rare.

Scientific revolutions — like discovering the structure of DNA or the theory of relativity — are the exception, not the rule. Even paradigm-shifting discoveries typically build on existing knowledge rather than discarding it entirely. Uncertainty doesn’t imply that science is on the verge of collapse but that it is dynamic and always improving.