Scientists have a long-standing, and probably well-deserved, reputation for being people prone to jargon – and I am no exception (see my article on vapor pressure deficitfor one). Despite this reputation, we use jargon to avoid confusion and be as precise as possible, ensuring our ideas are clearly understood. This seems simple enough for expressions such as vapor pressure deficit, which must be distinguished from concepts such as, for example, relative humidity. But scientists have also assigned specific meanings to otherwise ordinary words and phrases, which take on additional nuance and meaning when used in a scientific context.
Take the word risk. Engineers could use it to refer to the probability of a bridge collapsing. Economists might use it to refer to potential financial loss. An environmental scientist could use it to report possible harm to a vulnerable fish species or habitat. And in casual conversation, risk can mean general concern or danger. Without specifying context, the statement “The risks of tackling climate change are too great” could justify almost any decision, from strengthening a bridge to withstand extreme heat to ignorance of greenhouse gas emissions due to the financial losses the fossil fuel industry would suffer.
In the case of inbound administration, malicious actors use and create this confusion to exploit scientific illiteracy, justify inaction, And cultivate chaosall of which harm our communities, our health and our environment. This can take several forms: spread disinformationby emphasizing uncertainty, weaponizing ambiguity and nuance, or claiming that existing science is insufficient or incomplete, leading to harmful policies that distort the science while maintaining a veneer of credibility. science while maintaining a veneer of credibility.
In its first iteration, the Trump administration launched a coordinated attack on science and scientific integrityand so far, all signs point to it being the same thing the second time. To counter this, it is essential to recognize and interrogate the language that will shape the public discourse of the next administration. Here are three essential concepts that anyone who recognizes the essential value of science should know and be prepared to defend against bad faith attacks.
What is “best available science?” »
Best available science is the most reliable, valid, up-to-date and relevant empirical knowledge, and is referenced in laws, regulations and court decisions, based on criteria for listing new species and development of recovery plans as part of the Endangered Species Act At regulatory structure used in decision making by the Food & Drug Administration for approvals and labels. Science is dynamic and constantly evolving, which means that the best available science draws on this ongoing cycle of scientific research as well as data and evidence from a variety of sources. By nature, the best available science also relies on peer review and draws on experts from all disciplines.
In the decision-making process of many government agencies, expert groups and advisory committees serve this essential function of analyzing existing evidence. These panels are comprised of experienced researchers who are familiar with cutting-edge research, the strengths and limitations of methodologies, and the latest debates on specific details. Under the first Trump administration, we saw these panels and committees dissolved or reduced to the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Energy, and the Department of Health and Human Services, among others. Last year’s Supreme Court decision overturn the Chevron doctrine has further endangered the use of the best available science in decision-making by shifting power from experts in government agencies to the judiciary.
Additionally, the best available science also uses specific language (and, in some cases, jargon) to accurately describe scientific findings, e.g. using specific designations of forest types when calculating forest fire emissions or describing the consequences of rule changes on different orders of waterways. In some cases, the first Trump administration blocked scientists’ ability to do this, e.g. remove a term such as “climate change” from certain government communications.
Outside the United States, the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea reaffirmed the importance of using the best available scientific data in their unanimous advisory opinion describing obligations of countries to prevent, reduce and control pollution in the marine environment, highlighting the importance of scientific participation in all facets of decision-making.
The scientific consensus explained
The term “scientific consensus” refers to concepts that have broad consensus among scientists, based on multiple sources of data and extensive peer-reviewed research. Here are examples of cases where there is scientific consensus: evolution as the driving force of life on earth, the Big Bang like the origin of the universe; and that human activity, particularly the burning of fossil fuels, is the main driver of climate change. This does not mean absolute proof, unanimous agreement, or the end of the scientific process, but consensus provides a basis from which scientists can continue to gain knowledge to better protect our health, our environment, and our communities.
In the case of climate change, scientific consensus has given rise to countless new research questions about how we can adapt to protect our communities from rising seas, intensifying wildfires, and extreme heat. He also painted a clear picture of how to mitigate future climate change and protect the most vulnerable – a fair and rapid phase-out of fossil fuels.
The role of uncertainty in building trustworthy science
Quantifying and communicating uncertainty is a key part of any scientific endeavor, and scientists strive to understand and explain. THE Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Changewidely considered the world’s leading body on climate science, has developed a whole system to describe scientific uncertainty and confidence in key findings throughout their reports.
As I blogged about last year: “In conversation, uncertainty means something you don’t know – like I don’t know what I’m going to eat for lunch. But scientifically, uncertainty means how well we know something – more like a confidence range and usually visualized with confidence intervals or error bars depending on the data (I’m 90-95% sure I will eat beans for lunch).
When reading a scientific study, the lack of confidence intervals, explanations of methodologies, or other descriptions of how the researchers handled uncertainty is a problem. major red flag. While people outside the scientific community might assume that the absence of uncertainty demonstrates unwavering confidence in a discovery, to other scientists it means that the findings merit particularly careful consideration.
Under the first Trump administration, we saw Interior Ministry exaggerates uncertainty around climate change in several of its reports, in direct opposition to the scientific consensus.
Defending science and scientific integrity
As the second Trump administration approaches, protecting rigorous research and scientific integrity is more critical than ever. When key scientific principles such as transparency, accountability, and continuous investigation are compromised, as was the case during Trump’s first term, the consequences reverberate far beyond the scientific community, affecting public health, environmental sustainability and the resilience of democratic institutions. Deliberate manipulation of scientific findings, whether by suppressing inconvenient truths, placing too much emphasis on uncertainty, or distorting conclusions to fit a narrative, means that the best available science is missing from the mainstream decision.
This erosion of public trust in science creates fertile ground for disinformation campaignsblocks progress on pressing issues and prioritizes political or economic agendas over the public good. Under the first Trump administration, we saw these tactics in action, from removing climate change terminology from government reports to systematically dismantling advisory committees essential to applying the best available science to policy decisions.
Advocating for science is not just the responsibility of scientists: it requires collective action from policymakers, educators, advocates, and the public. Together, we can ensure that science continues to serve the public good, guiding decision-makers in a defensible and robust way towards a healthy, safe and just future.
L.Delta Merner, Senior Scientist at the Science Hub for Climate Litigation, contributed to this article.