Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • COMMENT

Five rules for evidence communication

Avoid unwarranted certainty, neat narratives and partisan presentation; strive to inform, not persuade.
  1. Michael Blastland

    1. Michael Blastland is a board member at the Winton Centre for Risk and Evidence Communication, University of Cambridge, UK.

    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed  Google Scholar

  2. Alexandra L. J. Freeman

    1. Alexandra L. J. Freeman is executive director at the Winton Centre for Risk and Evidence Communication, University of Cambridge, UK.

    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed  Google Scholar

  3. Sander van der Linden

    1. Sander van der Linden is a board member at the Winton Centre and director of the Cambridge Social Decision-Making Lab, University of Cambridge, UK.

    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed  Google Scholar

  4. Theresa M. Marteau

    1. Theresa M. Marteau is a board member at the Winton Centre and director of the Behaviour and Health Research Unit, University of Cambridge, UK.

    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed  Google Scholar

  5. David Spiegelhalter

    1. David Spiegelhalter is chair of the Winton Centre.

    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed  Google Scholar

An elderly woman looks up at a large model of a clown character in a surgical face mask outside a fancy dress shop in Cardiff

Consider what information — in what format — would best support your audiences’ decisions. Credit: Matthew Horwood/Getty

“Be persuasive”, “be engaging”, “tell stories with your science”.

Access options

Rent or buy this article

Prices vary by article type

from$1.95

to$39.95

Learn more

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Nature 587, 362-364 (2020)

doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-020-03189-1

References

  1. White, M. P. & Eiser, J. R. in Trust in Risk Management: Uncertainty and Scepticism in the Public Mind. Ch. 4, 95–117 (Taylor & Francis, 2010).

    Google Scholar 

  2. Smith, G. D., Blastland, M. & Munafò, M. Br. Med. J. 371, m3979 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Champkin, J. Significance 10, 23–29 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. van der Bles, A. M., van der Linden, S., Freeman, A. L. J. & Spiegelhalter, D. J. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 117, 7672–7683 (2020).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Brick, C., McDowell, M. & Freeman, A. L. J. R. Soc. Open Sci. 7, 190876 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Roozenbeek, J. & van der Linden, S. Palgrave Commun. 5, 65 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Maertens, R., Roozenbeek, J., Basol, M. & van der Linden, S. J. Exp. Psychol. Appl. https://doi.org/10.1037/xap0000315 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. van der Linden, S., Leiserowitz, A., Rosenthal, S. & Maibach, E. Glob. Challenges 1, 1600008 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Leng, G. & Leng, R. I. The Matter of Facts: Skepticism, Persuasion, and Evidence in Science (MIT Press, 2020).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Supplementary Information

  1. Supplementary information updated

Subjects

Latest on:

Nature Careers

Jobs

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing

Search

Advanced search

Quick links