(De)Romanticizing Uncertainty at the Transatlantic Science-Policy Interface?
Insights from a U.S.-German Case Study
Speaker: Finja Isabel Augsburg, DAAD/AGI Research Fellow
Moderator: Susanne Dieper, Director of Programs and Grants, AGI
When and how might the next pandemic emerge? Which regions are likely to experience extreme weather events in the coming year? Will rising sea levels cause severe flooding in beloved coastal towns? Questions like these, rooted in science, yet deeply entangled with politics and public concern beyond national borders, highlight how uncertainty sits at the core of contemporary socio-scientific issues. Scientific uncertainty reflects the evolving, provisional nature of scientific knowledge and confronts us with the fact that complex questions often cannot be solved with simple answers.
Although scientific uncertainty can provoke doubt outside scientific circles, it has increasingly been recognized as a catalyst for national and international science-policy cooperation, fostering recognition of its constructive role in the decade preceding the pandemic. COVID-19 marked a turning point. It was a clear call to action to reconsider how to convey what science does not (yet) know and why scientists may disagree, without undermining the trust of decision-makers and the public.
In light of shifting political agendas and the growing strategic instrumentalization of science and its uncertainties by political actors on both sides of the Atlantic, this webinar considers resulting implications for German-American collaboration and science diplomacy efforts. Drawing on an interview study with intermediaries bridging transatlantic science and policy arenas, it explores how scientific uncertainty shapes, challenges, or sustains transatlantic cooperation on socio-scientific issues such as climate change. This webinar further discusses whether previously idealized views of uncertainty must give way, at least for now, to a more pragmatic assessment of what has been lost, what is at risk, and what remains to build upon at the transatlantic science–policy interface in times of crisis.
Finja Isabel Augsburg is a doctoral researcher and project associate at the University of Erfurt, Germany. She is affiliated with the Institute for Planetary Health Behaviour and conducts in-depth research on science communication amid socio-scientific crises. Her work connects international relations and communication studies through the co-creation of new approaches to navigating scientific uncertainty with policy and media stakeholders.
Her professional experience spans theoretical and practical work in transatlantic contexts, including positions at the Goethe-Institut Washington, DC, the U.S. Embassy Berlin’s Public Diplomacy Section, and a visiting scholar role at the University of Texas at Austin’s Center for Media Engagement at Moody College of Communication.
During her tenure at AGI, Finja will focus on the increasingly prominent scientific uncertainty surrounding socio-scientific issues, exploring its role as political dynamics and agendas shift in Germany and the United States. By synthesizing insights from recent literature and conducting interviews with science-policy practitioners, her project aims to advance understanding of the risks and opportunities uncertainty presents for sustaining transatlantic dialogue on planetary health.
She previously presented her research on the role of scientific uncertainty in science diplomacy efforts as a panelist at the 2024 DWIH Future Forum at Johns Hopkins University in Washington, DC, and contributed to a corresponding edited volume, currently in press.
Event Summary
This webinar investigates the constructive and destructive potentials of scientific uncertainty for policymaking, using Germany and the United States as a case study. Socio-scientific issues (SSIs) are societal challenges rooted in science and come with no clear-cut policy solution. Examples of these issues include pandemics, climate change, biodiversity loss, and sea-level rise. Since uncertainty is a core part of scientific research, acknowledging uncertainty is important in better discussing socio-scientific issues in political discourse.
Uncertainty can help catalyze constructive and disruptive dynamics at the science-policy interface. Before the COVID-19 pandemic, an increasingly positive view of uncertainty emerged; scientists and policymakers saw open questions as an opportunity for collaboration between disciplines and borders in order to solve complex problems. Intermediaries could work with both scientists and policymakers to help them understand the problems and develop solutions. Uncertainties could be addressed through robust national and international information-sharing.
Since the pandemic, science has been under pressure and political agendas have shifted on both sides of the Atlantic; policymakers have become interested in delivering simple solutions to voters. This is in conflict to the nature of socio-scientific challenges, which do not have simple, clear-cut answers. Notably, Europe’s right wing has targeted scientifically-supported legislation aimed at addressing pressing global issues such as climate change. In Germany, the Alternative for Germany (AfD) has claimed that climate change is a political construct, weaponizing it and sowing doubt among voters on an issue with wide-scientific consensus. In the United States, the Trump administration’s executive order on “Gold Standard Science” has emphasized scientific uncertainty as a key reason to block the enactment of any regulatory action aimed at addressing socio-scientific issues.
There has also been a rise in domestic and international concern due to the Trump administration’s cuts to federal funding of research initiatives and skeptical attitude towards science. As access to databases and funding for scientific research decreases in the United States, European decision-makers are reassessing dependence on U.S. research.
Implementing protective regulations or actions on SSIs in the presence of uncertainty is not new. In the late 1970s, chlorofluorocarbons in aerosol sprays were banned in the United States due to potentially damaging effects on the ozone layer. This being only one of many examples, policymakers have found that preventive action can protect nature and ecosystems, prevent loss of life on a large scale, and avoid major economic costs. There are some national differences in the approach to preventative actions. The current German administration was observed to show more openness to precautions and long-term planning, while U.S. leaders were found to prefer policies that yield immediate results. Addressing socio-scientific issues does not fall neatly along party lines. It even causes in-party disagreements. For example, Texas Republicans largely support investments in wind energy despite output uncertainty, in conflict with the Trump administration.
Key perspectives from the case study highlight the need for deeper collaboration at the science-policy interface. Scientific uncertainty should be seen pragmatically rather than dismissed. Uncertainty can act as a catalyst for research collaboration and guide science diplomacy engagement. Although the political weaponization of uncertainty as a political instrument persists, embracing uncertainty can allow decision-makers to more strongly address pressing socio-scientific challenges and position themselves better as leaders on socio-scientific policymaking. A pragmatic approach to uncertainty should emphasize the tangible benefits of science-policy collaboration. Expert intermediaries between the two areas can demonstrate how science, even with uncertainty, could benefit national strategic interests, economic outcomes, and individual safety.
This event is supported by the DAAD with funds from the Federal Foreign Office.
