Quantifying scientific uncertainty from expert judgement elicitation

W. P. Aspinall, R. M. Cooke

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingChapter

44 Citations (Scopus)


Most scientists would like to see scientific advice used more in government decision-making and in all areas of public policy where science is salient, and many would welcome the opportunity to sit on expert review panels or scientific advisory committees. When it comes to taking such decisions in many areas of hazard and risk assessment, the traditional committee approach still holds sway. Often in a committee setting, however, the role of scientific uncertainty is not an item on the agenda, and seldom a prominent component of the discussion. But misunderstanding its importance or misstating its extent will contribute to poor decisions.
The slow, deliberative committee process, seeking a wide range of opinions with majority voting on outcomes, offers some parallels with the scientific process itself, but only in as much as a show of hands can equate to strength of argument. But as a means of gathering expert opinion it is inadequate under many conditions, such as an urgent civil emergency arising from an incipient natural disaster such as a hurricane or volcanic eruption – situations demanding prompt scientific advice.
Original languageEnglish
Title of host publicationRisk and Uncertainty Assessment for Natural Hazards
EditorsJonathan Rougier, Steve Sparks, Lisa J. Hill
Place of PublicationCambridge
PublisherCambridge University Press
Number of pages36
ISBN (Print)9781139047562
Publication statusPublished - 2013


  • scientific uncertainty
  • expert judgement elicitation


Dive into the research topics of 'Quantifying scientific uncertainty from expert judgement elicitation'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this