There’s something rotten in the state of science. For example, did you know that 27% of US adults have little or no confidence in scientists? The results were highlighted in a recent PNAS article, where members of the Strategic Council for Research Excellence, Integrity, and Trust in the US analyzed data from multiple surveys evaluating public confidence in science.
In other words, the future of scientific literacy and trust seems bleak.
But I’ll tone down the Shakespearean melodrama for a moment. In this post, I’m going to convey more hopeful messages. The good news is that we can do something about science trust, starting with how we communicate science.
Fortunately, most issues associated with science trust and engagement stem from the same three factors. Let’s call these three factors the Science Trust Trifecta, a tripod that holds scientific literacy, trust, and public engagement (WIP).
But first, let’s look at the complex state of science-related discussions and trust.
The contradictions in public science debates
Even after years in science and science communication, I still get puzzled by the discussions related to science and society. Words and arguments mean different things depending on the perceiver.
For example, I always find it confusing when the leading rhetoric simultaneously scoffs at the public’s ignorance and their attempts to join the discussion. The critique appears context-dependent, and the public sometimes gets labeled as dangerous and anti-scientific. But how are we supposed to become smarter without participating?
To show another example of contradictions or misguided criticism, let’s look at this simple meme:
Sometimes, the meme says, “If it can be destroyed by the truth, it deserves to be destroyed by the truth.” These and similar memes float around social media and constantly receive thousands of (often angry) comments wherever they’re posted. Some reject the memes as strawman arguments, and others plainly as anti-science or anti-vax.
Still, although some misuse them for anti-science propaganda, these memes reveal how arguments are in the eye of the beholder. While we may perceive the memes as critical of science and scientists, others—often scientists—agree that scientific ideas are ever-changing.
As we discussed when we evaluated a different science meme, “the science” (sometimes with a capital S) bears different meanings to people: academic scientists, the concept of science, scientific consensus, pharmaceutical companies, advisors to the President, science articles, regulatory bodies, political decisions, or science influencers. Likewise, the context and person claiming we should “trust the science” also vary and need consideration. The question is, who or what is the meme criticizing? And why?
I don’t argue for or against these specific memes; they can be valid or invalid, depending on the context. Instead, the examples highlight how reflections about the state of science, its issues, and lack of trust hide behind vagueness. Isolated, they lose purpose and focus, and we never learn how to improve science’s structures. What’s rotten in the state of science?
Do people distrust science? Try the Science Trust Trifecta™
Apart from other social aspects, addressing the Science Trust Trifecta can significantly improve people’s trust in science. If we consider the trifecta in all instances of science, we create a participatory, engaging, and honest dialogue that can improve scientific literacy. What’s the Science Trust Trifecta, you ask?
- Integrity
- Accountability
- Critical discussion
Before we delve into these three factors, let’s evaluate the existing distrust in science. Based on the PNAS publication, 27% of US adults (almost three out of ten) have little or no trust in science. The same publication shows distrust toward scientists and medical scientists has increased recently.
I recently critiqued an ongoing crusade against “the deadly rise of anti-science,” especially its vagueness around its meaning and evidence. (here’s the second part; I will soon publish a book review on the same topic.) But, considering the PNAS’s observations, perhaps the worries of a growing anti-science were correct all along.
However, we find ourselves in a situation similar to the memes described above: it all depends on what we focus on. True, we can gasp at these percentages of distrust because we can do better to increase the trust in scientists. However, what does the PNAS data really show?
“Confidence in science is high relative to nearly all other civic, cultural, and governmental institutions for which data are collected, a conclusion consistent with long-term trends.”
Regarding the decline in trust:
“Confidence has declined…but the decline is not science-specific. Instead, science’s decline is similar to or less pronounced than confidence in many institutions.”
Immediately, the forecast brightens up. Compared with other institutions, trust in medical scientists and scientists is among the highest in the US (only the military scores similarly or slightly better). Also, the decline in science trust seems to follow an overall falling trend among all public institutions in the US.
Interestingly, the three groups with the highest distrust rates are journalists (58% distrust), business leaders (64%), and elected officials (75%!). These groups represent our system and have vast influential or financial interests in science and its structures. Consider the information wars between partisan US news platforms, pharmaceutical companies’ lobbying, and the link between governments, large businesses, and profits, including during the pandemic.
The public seems to have a habit of seeing through dishonesty in the power structures.
But how can we know if the plummeting effect of these least-trusted entities (journalists, business leaders, and politicians) impacts science? Enter the Science Trust Trifecta.
Implementing the Science Trust Trifecta to improve trust in science and science communication
So, is trust in science good or bad? Again, it depends on what we focus on.
In the introduction, I may have convinced some of you that a 27% distrust rate spells bad news for science simply by how I framed it. Later on, when we put the results into context, we realized that science trust is doing relatively well compared with other institutions and public groups. Still, trust has fallen in the last few years—even if it’s a general problem. In other words, we should do something.
By now, the multipronged nature of science-related issues and discussions should have become clear. I can sell you many versions of science and science-related issues if I use vagueness and superficial viewpoints.
Let’s admit that these issues, including scientific distrust and disengagement, are far from straightforward. But that’s okay; we expect complexity in the scientific discourse.
The Science Trust Trifecta (integrity, accountability, and critical discussion) forms a tripod where science and science trust rest. To understand the different parts of science, we can progressively understand the underlying issues that undermine the trifecta. As scientists and communicators, we reveal and clarify these issues with constructive intentions.
Integrity in science
As scientists and communicators, we must openly acknowledge potential conflicts of interest and ensure that our research and conclusions are driven solely by evidence, not external pressures or biases. That means promoting transparency and questioning conflicts of interest in the scientific literature and narratives.
Accountability in science
We take responsibility for the consequences of our scientific work, including addressing errors, updating findings when new evidence emerges, and being responsive to public concerns and critiques. It’s easy to fight for our cause but difficult to change direction when we’re clearly wrong. We should maintain respectful dialogues between experts and the public and support people when they correct errors.
Critical discussion about science
As scientists and communicators, we promote an open, respectful, and rigorous exchange of ideas where scientists and the public can question, debate, and refine scientific knowledge to improve understanding and trust. This point is critical when discussing value-related topics affecting our lives and where we are all experts.
Extensive data like the ones presented in the PNAS article help us understand the needs and concerns of the public so we can analyze them further and do better. Contrasting purely correlational studies (for example, to suggest that the UK’s voters were ignorant during Brexit), the PNAS article sought to understand people’s opinions and feelings toward science.
US citizens “perceive scientists as competent, trustworthy, honest, ethical, and as caring about others’ well-being.” They believe that research can help them at an individual and national level. However, they show concerns about scientists’ biases and conflicts of interest (integrity) and favor funding disclosure (accountability), as well as justified change of mind (critical discussion).
We should address these concerns critically and explicitly, maintaining our integrity. Unfortunately, that means we occasionally have to bite the hand that feeds us, whether it’s the drug industry, biotech, politicians, journals, or scientists in general. But if these institutions have a scientific mindset and serve our society, they won’t mind. It’s for a good cause, after all.
Look at that. I think this turned out quite optimistic. We’ve learned that US adults’ distrust in scientists is relatively low and that its decline isn’t science-specific. We’ve seen that we can reach the root of the problems in science if we clarify the message and analyze the critique. We also have a strategy to improve science trust, scientific literacy, and sound public participation and engagement in science: addressing the Science Trust Trifecta.
Critical science communication and scientific thinking form vital tools to bridge the gap between the scientific Ivory Tower and the majority. Like critical thinking, we can all learn critical communication and scientific thinking.
It may change with time. However, the trifecta is a good starting point for improving trust in science as we learn more about how and why people distrust or detach. Let’s see how it goes.
