Science Advice under Deep Uncertainty

Gabriel Gray

Abstract

This review examines science advice under deep uncertainty. The organizing question is how advisers can communicate scenarios, disagreement, value judgments, and adaptive options without manufacturing certainty. Ten related scholarly sources are synthesized through a decision-centered framework spanning problem definition, mechanism, measurement, evaluation, implementation, and governance. The review does not invent experiments, pooled estimates, or unreported quantitative results. It instead evaluates the strength and transferability of the available evidence, with particular attention to compressing contested evidence into a single forecast detached from decision values. The resulting framework links technical or empirical performance to explicit use conditions and identifies tests that should precede wider adoption in evidence-informed public policy.

Keywords

science advicedeep uncertaintypublic policyevidenceadaptive decisions

References

Beek, L. V., Hajer, M., Pelzer, P., Vuuren, D. V., & Cassen, C. (2020). Anticipating futures through models: the rise of Integrated Assessment Modelling in the climate science-policy interface since 1970. Global Environmental Change, 65, 102191. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2020.102191 DOI
Birch, J. (2021). Science and policy in extremis: the UK’s initial response to COVID-19. European Journal for Philosophy of Science, 11(3), 90. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13194-021-00407-z DOI
Cairney, P., & Weible, C. M. (2017). The new policy sciences: combining the cognitive science of choice, multiple theories of context, and basic and applied analysis. Policy Sciences, 50(4), 619-627. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-017-9304-2 DOI
Chindarkar, N., & Grafton, R. Q. (2019). India's depleting groundwater: When science meets policy. Asia & the Pacific Policy Studies, 6(1), 108-124. https://doi.org/10.1002/app5.269 DOI
Grennfelt, P., Engleryd, A., Forsius, M., Hov, Ø., Rodhe, H., & Cowling, E. (2019). Acid rain and air pollution: 50 years of progress in environmental science and policy. AMBIO, 49(4), 849-864. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-019-01244-4 DOI
Hetland, P. (2016). Models in Science Communication Policy. Nordic Journal of Science and Technology Studies, 2(2), 5-17. https://doi.org/10.5324/njsts.v2i2.2144 DOI
Moomaw, W. R., Chmura, G. L., Davies, G. T., Finlayson, C. M., Middleton, B. A., Natali, S. M., Perry, J. E., Roulet, N., & Sutton-Grier, A. E. (2018). Wetlands In a Changing Climate: Science, Policy and Management. Wetlands, 38(2), 183-205. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13157-018-1023-8 DOI
Pearce, W., Mahony, M., & Raman, S. (2017). Science advice for global challenges: Learning from trade-offs in the IPCC. Environmental Science & Policy, 80, 125-131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2017.11.017 DOI
Saltelli, A., & Giampietro, M. (2017). What is wrong with evidence based policy, and how can it be improved?. Futures, 91, 62-71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2016.11.012 DOI
Schleussner, C. F., Rogelj, J., Schaeffer, M., Lissner, T., Licker, R., Fischer, E. M., Knutti, R., Levermann, A., Frieler, K., & Hare, W. (2016). Science and policy characteristics of the Paris Agreement temperature goal. Nature Climate Change, 6(9), 827-835. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate3096 DOI

Publication details

Journal: Convergence in Science and Society
Volume: 1 (2026)
Article number: css20260003
License: CC BY 4.0

[1] Beek, L. V., Hajer, M., Pelzer, P., Vuuren, D. V., & Cassen, C. (2020). Anticipating futures through models: the rise of Integrated Assessment Modelling in the climate science-policy interface since 1970. Global Environmental Change, 65, 102191. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2020.102191 DOI

[2] Birch, J. (2021). Science and policy in extremis: the UK’s initial response to COVID-19. European Journal for Philosophy of Science, 11(3), 90. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13194-021-00407-z DOI

[3] Cairney, P., & Weible, C. M. (2017). The new policy sciences: combining the cognitive science of choice, multiple theories of context, and basic and applied analysis. Policy Sciences, 50(4), 619-627. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-017-9304-2 DOI

[4] Chindarkar, N., & Grafton, R. Q. (2019). India's depleting groundwater: When science meets policy. Asia & the Pacific Policy Studies, 6(1), 108-124. https://doi.org/10.1002/app5.269 DOI

[5] Grennfelt, P., Engleryd, A., Forsius, M., Hov, Ø., Rodhe, H., & Cowling, E. (2019). Acid rain and air pollution: 50 years of progress in environmental science and policy. AMBIO, 49(4), 849-864. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-019-01244-4 DOI

[6] Hetland, P. (2016). Models in Science Communication Policy. Nordic Journal of Science and Technology Studies, 2(2), 5-17. https://doi.org/10.5324/njsts.v2i2.2144 DOI

[7] Moomaw, W. R., Chmura, G. L., Davies, G. T., Finlayson, C. M., Middleton, B. A., Natali, S. M., Perry, J. E., Roulet, N., & Sutton-Grier, A. E. (2018). Wetlands In a Changing Climate: Science, Policy and Management. Wetlands, 38(2), 183-205. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13157-018-1023-8 DOI

[8] Pearce, W., Mahony, M., & Raman, S. (2017). Science advice for global challenges: Learning from trade-offs in the IPCC. Environmental Science & Policy, 80, 125-131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2017.11.017 DOI

[9] Saltelli, A., & Giampietro, M. (2017). What is wrong with evidence based policy, and how can it be improved?. Futures, 91, 62-71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2016.11.012 DOI

[10] Schleussner, C. F., Rogelj, J., Schaeffer, M., Lissner, T., Licker, R., Fischer, E. M., Knutti, R., Levermann, A., Frieler, K., & Hare, W. (2016). Science and policy characteristics of the Paris Agreement temperature goal. Nature Climate Change, 6(9), 827-835. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate3096 DOI