Editing Scientific consensus (section)

{{Short description|Collective judgment, position, and opinion of the community of scientists}}
'''Scientific consensus''' is the generally held judgment, position, and opinion of the [[majority]] or the [[supermajority]] of [[scientist]]s in a [[Scientific discipline|particular field]] of study at any particular time.<ref>{{Cite web |last1=Ordway |first1=Denise-Marie |date=2021-11-23 |title=Covering scientific consensus: What to avoid and how to get it right |url=https://journalistsresource.org/media/scientific-consensus-news-tips/ |access-date=2022-09-11 |website=The Journalist's Resource |language=en-US}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url= http://www.greenfacts.org/glossary/abc/consensus.htm|title= Scientific Consensus|publisher= Green Facts|access-date= October 24, 2016}}</ref>

Consensus is achieved through [[scholarly communication]] at [[Academic conference|conferences]], the [[Academic publishing|publication]] process, replication of [[Reproducibility|reproducible]] results by others, scholarly [[debate]],<ref>{{Cite book|title=Science and Values: The Aims of Science and Their Role in Scientific Debate|last=Laudan|first=Larry|publisher=University of California Press|year=1984|isbn=0-520-05267-6|location=London, England, UK}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal|last=Ford|first=Michael|date=2008|title=Disciplinary authority and accountability in scientific practice and learning|url=http://www.bu.edu/hps-scied/files/2012/11/Ford-HPS-Disciplinary-Authority-and-Accountability-in-Scientific-Practice-and-Learning.pdf|journal=Science Education|volume=92|issue=3|page=409|doi=10.1002/sce.20263|quote=Construction of scientific knowledge is first of all public, a collaborative effort among a community of peers working in a particular area. 'Collaborative' may seem a misnomer because individual scientists compete with each other in their debates about new knowledge claims. Yet this sense of collaboration is important: it checks individual scientists from being given authority for new knowledge claims prematurely.|bibcode=2008SciEd..92..404F}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal|last=Webster|first=Gregory D.|date=2009|title=The person-situation interaction is increasingly outpacing the person-situation debate in the scientific literature: A 30-year analysis of publication trends, 1978-2007|journal=Journal of Research in Personality|volume=43|issue=2|pages=278–279|doi=10.1016/j.jrp.2008.12.030}}</ref><ref>Horstmann, K. T., & Ziegler, M. (2016). Situational Perception: Its Theoretical Foundation, Assessment, and Links to Personality. In U. Kumar (Ed.), ''The Wiley Handbook of Personality Assessment'' (1st ed., pp. 31–43). Oxford: Wiley Blackwell. ("In ''Personality Assessment'', Walter Mischel focused on the instability of personality and claimed that it is nearly impossible to predict behavior with personality (Mischel, 1968, 2009). This led to the person-situation debate, a controversy in psychology that sought to answer the question whether behavior depended more on the subject's personality or the situation (or both) and has received considerable research attention (Webster, 2009).")</ref> and [[peer review]]. A conference meant to create a consensus is termed as a consensus conference.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Przepiorka |first1=D. |last2=Weisdorf |first2=D. |last3=Martin |first3=P. |last4=Klingemann |first4=H. G. |last5=Beatty |first5=P. |last6=Hows |first6=J. |last7=Thomas |first7=E. D. |title=1994 Consensus Conference on Acute GVHD Grading |journal=Bone Marrow Transplantation |date=June 1995 |volume=15 |issue=6 |pages=825–828 |pmid=7581076 |url=https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7581076/ |issn=0268-3369}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Jennette |first1=J. C. |last2=Falk |first2=R. J. |last3=Bacon |first3=P. A. |last4=Basu |first4=N. |last5=Cid |first5=M. C. |last6=Ferrario |first6=F. |last7=Flores-Suarez |first7=L. F. |last8=Gross |first8=W. L. |last9=Guillevin |first9=L. |last10=Hagen |first10=E. C. |last11=Hoffman |first11=G. S. |last12=Jayne |first12=D. R. |last13=Kallenberg |first13=C. G. |last14=Lamprecht |first14=P. |last15=Langford |first15=C. A. |last16=Luqmani |first16=R. A. |last17=Mahr |first17=A. D. |last18=Matteson |first18=E. L. |last19=Merkel |first19=P. A. |last20=Ozen |first20=S. |last21=Pusey |first21=C. D. |last22=Rasmussen |first22=N. |last23=Rees |first23=A. J. |last24=Scott |first24=D. G. |last25=Specks |first25=U. |last26=Stone |first26=J. H. |last27=Takahashi |first27=K. |last28=Watts |first28=R. A. |title=2012 revised International Chapel Hill Consensus Conference Nomenclature of Vasculitides. |journal=Arthritis and Rheumatism |date=2013 |volume=65 |issue=1 |pages=1–11 |doi=10.1002/art.37715 |pmid=23045170 |url=https://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:c252d084-1ab1-45cf-8d98-f582618bb2db |language=en |issn=0004-3591|doi-access=free }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Antzelevitch |first1=Charles |last2=Brugada |first2=Pedro |last3=Borggrefe |first3=Martin |last4=Brugada |first4=Josep |last5=Brugada |first5=Ramon |last6=Corrado |first6=Domenico |last7=Gussak |first7=Ihor |last8=LeMarec |first8=Herve |last9=Nademanee |first9=Koonlawee |last10=Perez Riera |first10=Andres Ricardo |last11=Shimizu |first11=Wataru |last12=Schulze-Bahr |first12=Eric |last13=Tan |first13=Hanno |last14=Wilde |first14=Arthur |title=Brugada syndrome: report of the second consensus conference: endorsed by the Heart Rhythm Society and the European Heart Rhythm Association |journal=Circulation |date=8 February 2005 |volume=111 |issue=5 |pages=659–670 |doi=10.1161/01.CIR.0000152479.54298.51 |pmid=15655131 |issn=1524-4539|doi-access=free }}</ref> Such measures lead to a situation in which those within the discipline can often recognize such a consensus where it exists; however, communicating to outsiders that consensus has been reached can be difficult, because the "normal" debates through which science progresses may appear to outsiders as contestation.<ref name="Shwed and Bearman 2010">{{cite journal|author1= Shwed Uri|author2= Peter Bearman|title= The Temporal Structure of Scientific Consensus Formation|journal= American Sociological Review|volume= 75|issue= 6|date= December 2010|pages= 817–40|doi= 10.1177/0003122410388488|pmid= 21886269|pmc= 3163460}}</ref> On occasion, scientific institutes issue position statements intended to communicate a summary of the science from the "inside" to the "outside" of the scientific community, or consensus review articles<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Anderegg|first1=William R. L.|last2=Prall|first2=James W.|last3=Harold|first3=Jacob|last4=Schneider|first4=Stephen H.|date=2010-06-07|title=Expert credibility in climate change|journal=Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences|volume=107 |issue=27 |pages=12107–12109 |language=en|doi=10.1073/pnas.1003187107|issn=0027-8424|pmid=20566872|pmc=2901439 |bibcode=2010PNAS..10712107A |doi-access=free }}</ref> or [[Survey (human research)|survey]]s<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Cook|first1=John|last2=Oreskes|first2=Naomi|last3=Doran|first3=Peter T.|last4=Anderegg|first4=William R. L.|last5=Verheggen|first5=Bart|last6=Maibach|first6=Ed W.|last7=Carlton|first7=J. Stuart|last8=Lewandowsky|first8=Stephan|last9=Skuce|first9=Andrew G.|last10=Green|first10=Sarah A.|last11=Nuccitelli|first11=Dana|date=April 2016|title=Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming|journal=Environmental Research Letters|language=en|volume=11|issue=4|pages=048002|doi=10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002|bibcode=2016ERL....11d8002C |s2cid=470384 |issn=1748-9326|doi-access=free|hdl=1983/34949783-dac1-4ce7-ad95-5dc0798930a6|hdl-access=free}}</ref> may be published. In cases where there is little controversy regarding the subject under study, establishing the consensus can be quite straightforward.

Popular or political debate on subjects that are controversial within the public sphere but not necessarily controversial within the scientific community may invoke scientific consensus: note such topics as [[evolution]],<ref>{{Cite web| title= Statement on the Teaching of Evolution|url= http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2006/pdf/0219boardstatement.pdf |publisher= American Association for the Advancement of Science |date= 2006-02-16 |access-date= 2008-05-02}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web| title= NSTA Position Statement: The Teaching of Evolution|url= http://www.nsta.org/about/positions/evolution.aspx|publisher= National Science Teacher Association |access-date= 2008-05-02}}</ref> [[Scientific consensus on climate change#Consensus points|climate change]],<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20050609025503/http://nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf "Joint Science Academies' Statement"] ''nationalacademies.org''</ref> the safety of [[genetically modified organism]]s,<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Nicolia|first1=Allesandro|last2=Manzo|first2=Alberto|last3=Veronesi|first3=Fabio|last4=Rosellini|first4=Daniele|date=2013|title=An overview of the last 10 years of genetically engineered crop safety research|url=https://doi.org/10.3109/07388551.2013.823595|journal=Critical Reviews in Biotechnology|volume=34|issue=1|pages=77–88|doi=10.3109/07388551.2013.823595|pmid=24041244|s2cid=9836802|url-access=subscription}}</ref> or the lack of a link between [[MMR vaccine controversy|MMR vaccinations and autism]].<ref name="Shwed and Bearman 2010" />

Scientific consensus is related to (and sometimes used to mean) [[Convergence of evidence|convergent evidence]], that is, the concept that independent sources of evidence converge on a conclusion.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Thorp |first=H. Holden |author-link=Holden Thorp |date=2025-04-25 |title=Convergence and consensus |url=https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.ady3211 |journal=Science |language=en |volume=388 |issue=6745 |pages=339–339 |doi=10.1126/science.ady3211 |issn=0036-8075|url-access=subscription }}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |title=Explainer: Scientific Consensus |url=https://skepticalscience.com/explainer-scientific-consensus.shtml |access-date=2025-05-02 |website=[[Skeptical Science]]}}</ref>