Stories

Civic Science Fellow Natasha Strydhorst

When Natasha Strydhorst talks about uncertainty in science, she naturally leans in. It’s not the uncertainty itself that excites her, but rather the challenge it creates for science communication.

“By presenting consensus science messages without disclaimers, potentially we’re inadvertently reinforcing this false narrative that science is meant to be certain,” Natasha says. “The implication is that when it’s uncertain, that means it’s untrustworthy.”

As a Civic Science Fellow at the Morgridge Institute for Research and the University of Wisconsin-Madison, Natasha is working to change how nonscientists think about uncertainty in science.

Her work addresses a fundamental tension: Uncertainty is an essential part of the scientific process, yet a sense of discomfort with not knowing is just as essential to human survival. This instinct evolved to attune us to risk and push us toward action in the face of potential danger. But when that same discomfort is applied to the open-ended, iterative nature of science, it can backfire, eroding public trust and creating fertile ground for disinformation to take root.

“Decades of ‘uncertainty weaponization’ and centuries of ‘uncertainty discomfort’ have contributed to this prevalent false narrative that science is supposed to be certain,” Natasha says.

This narrative is not new. Some industries have long leveraged uncertainty to delay action on public health and environmental risks—perhaps most notably in the tobacco industry’s decades-long denial of smoking risks and the fossil fuel industry’s efforts to cast doubt on climate change science. By exploiting public discomfort with uncertainty, these tactics have successfully undermined trust in scientific expertise in other areas as well.

Bridging worlds: from journalism to research

Natasha’s path to becoming a champion for uncertainty communication was itself uncertain. As an undergraduate at Calvin University in Grand Rapids, Michigan, she found herself drawn to multiple fields of study.

“Lots of potential majors appealed to me, and I felt like I’d be closing all of these doors to choose just one of them,” she recalls. “So, I picked two, writing and environmental studies. And it’s felt like all the years since have been something of an attempt to combine these two fields into one cohesive whole.”

This interdisciplinary approach led her to pursue a master’s degree in science journalism at Boston University. There, she honed her skills in making complex scientific concepts easy for non-scientists to understand.

“After that program, I had some idea of how to communicate science to general audiences, but also this greater understanding of how difficult and complicated that was becoming,” Natasha says. “I wanted to find out why.”

Her path into research wasn’t one she walked alone. Climate scientist and communicator Katharine Hayhoe became an early influence, first through her writing and later as a mentor. Hayhoe connected Strydhorst with Asheley Landrum, then studying science mis- and dis-information at Texas Tech University in Lubbock, where Natasha ended up doing her Ph.D. research.

The pandemic as a catalyst for understanding

As a graduate student, Natasha began to focus on the role of uncertainty in science communication, particularly in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. The United States had just “locked down,” and the pandemic was a stark, real-time case study in uncertainty. Scientists were racing to understand a novel virus and communicating knowledge even as it was evolving in real time.

“Uncertainty was in the spotlight in a way I’d never seen before,” Natasha says. “People across the board were talking about uncertainty, but they were talking about it in a different tone,” she says. “Some people said, ‘They’re changing their minds, so I don’t trust them.’ Others who were closer to the science saw the changing recommendations as how scientific progress normally works. It wasn’t a reason to distrust scientists.”

This observation became a cornerstone of Natasha’s research, leading her to investigate how different presentations of scientific uncertainty could affect public trust and understanding. In one study, she focused on neuroimaging, comparing people’s reactions to articles that either framed a new technology as nearing the ability to “read minds” or presented the technology as still developing and full of unanswered questions.

“I found that when uncertainty was presented honestly, people appreciated it as a truthful perspective, which suggests that in less contentious areas, we can communicate uncertainty effectively.”

As she completed her doctoral studies, she was looking for a way to apply her research in real-world settings when she found the Civic Science Fellowship at the Science Communication Incubator Lab (SCI Lab) at Morgridge and UW-Madison.

Communicating consensus

The Fellowship offered Natasha exactly what she was looking for: a chance to bridge the gap between academic research and practical application. Her work straddles two worlds, much like her early academic interests did. “The position is a collaboration between the Education and Engagement Team at Morgridge and the lab at University of Wisconsin-Madison’s Department of Life Sciences Communication,” she says.

This dual affiliation allows Natasha to pursue rigorous research while also engaging directly with scientists and the public. Her days are a mix of data analysis, collaborative meetings, and hands-on outreach activities. In addition to her research projects, she is co-authoring a science communication primer with Landrum and researcher Heather Akin.

At the heart of Natasha’s current work is what is known as the “collateral damage hypothesis.” As she puts it: “Are we inadvertently causing collateral damage to people’s perceptions of science when we communicate consensus science without also indicating that a lack of consensus doesn’t mean the science is flawed?”

To investigate this question, Natasha is leading a study that looks at how people respond to different presentations of scientific consensus. She’s also involved in projects that tackle various aspects of science communication and public engagement, from investigating scientists’ perceptions of public outreach to developing critical thinking interventions for middle and high school students.

Boundary spanner

Growing up in Calgary, Alberta, Natasha developed a love for the outdoors that paralleled her passion for understanding how things work. As an undergrad, Natasha participated in the Climate Witness Project. “I was involved with encouraging local churches to consider climate change science in the context of their creation stewardship values.”

This early experience with bridging scientific understanding and community values foreshadowed her current work in science communication.

Now, Natasha particularly values the unique position her Fellowship affords her. “This Fellowship lets me extend the time I can spend in this liminal space, this boundary spanning space, to use the civic science terminology. I’m working with the public engagement team while at the same time being really involved in this high-producing social science lab.”

This dual role is not without its challenges. Natasha notes the stark differences in timelines between academic research, which often works in months and years, and public communication, which needs the information right now. But she sees immense value in these collaborations; they’re essential to fostering a more scientifically literate and engaged society.

Looking to the future of civic science

As Natasha looks ahead, she sees her Fellowship experience as a launching pad for a career at the intersection of research and public engagement.

“I’ve given consideration to going back into institutional communications,” she says. “Taking the findings from my research and using them in the field of communicating science to the public. Maybe contributing a little bit to rehabilitating the public’s view of uncertainty’s place in science.”

This goal—improving public understanding of scientific uncertainty—remains at the core of her work. As scientists tackle increasingly complex global challenges, from climate change to future pandemics, Natasha believes that effectively communicating the realities of scientific uncertainty will be key.

As she continues her work probing the complexities of how we perceive and communicate scientific uncertainty, Natasha embodies the mission of the Civic Science Fellows program. She’s not just studying the intersection of science and society, she’s actively working to strengthen it. At a time when public trust in science faces new challenges, her research is more relevant than ever.

For Natasha, the value of her Fellowship extends far beyond her individual projects. She sees her role, and that of her fellow Civic Science Fellows, as crucial in bridging the growing divide between scientific institutions and the public they serve.

“Society and science need each other desperately,” she says, “and the Fellows are doing work to forge the relationships that make scientific and societal flourishing possible.”

Natasha is a member of the 2024-25 Civic Science Fellows cohort. Her Fellowship is supported by the Rita Allen Foundation and Morgridge Institute for Research.