Photo: ImageSelect
Trust in science and researchers remains high. This is the finding of a large-scale study of more than 70,000 respondents in 68 countries, led by the University of Zurich (Nature Human Behaviour, 20 January). On a scale converted to a school grade out of ten, scientists receive an average score of just over 7 for trustworthiness (3.62 on a scale of 5). The Netherlands also scores around 7, whilst scientists in Albania and India score a modest 6 and a generous 8.5 respectively. How important is public trust in science, and how can it be maintained or built upon further?
Philipp Schmid, researcher in disinformation in healthcare decision-making at Radboud University and co-author of the Nature Human Behaviour study
‘People make thousands of decisions every day, and it is impossible to be an expert on every topic about which we make those decisions. During the COVID-19 pandemic, we saw how important it is for individuals and population groups to be open to information from scientists: research showed that people who did not get vaccinated, who did not wear face masks, and who did not protect themselves and their loved ones in the best possible way, had little trust in scientific measures or in the people communicating those measures. Trust in science is therefore essential for individuals to make good decisions and to be able to respond to a crisis.
Trust can be increased if we as researchers are able to convey scientific findings in a credible way. For this, it is important that these spokespersons are seen as both competent and empathetic. Last year, my colleagues and I published research showing that demonstrating respect for a patient’s worldview and values can increase patients’ willingness to listen to advice from doctors and nurses. This can also improve decision-making. Trust can therefore be increased when people feel safe to express their concerns. That sense of safety is often shaped more by how we communicate than by what we say.’
Bastiaan Rutjens, social psychologist at the University of Amsterdam
‘Trust in science is enormously important. As scientists, we ask people to trust that institutions outside themselves are telling them things about reality that they cannot always observe for themselves, and that sometimes run counter to their intuitions. The results of this study do not surprise me. They are broadly in line with the figures that the Rathenau Institute regularly publishes. I also recognise them from my own research. When you ask people about their general trust in science, it is fairly high and the figures are reassuring. The picture changes when you ask people about specific scientific domains, such as research into climate change, GMOs, and vaccines. With these kinds of hot-button issues, you see more variation. It is often not the same groups of people who distrust all these scientific domains, but in general they tend to be people who feel a distance from science. If you do not know any researchers or see them in your surroundings, or if you cannot see the relevance of science to your life, that is a fairly good predictor of scepticism. We therefore need to bring science closer to people in order to increase their trust. The researchers behind the Nature study write in their press release that people perceive a gap between their own priorities and those of science, and they recommend that scientists address this. I understand this criticism, but the fact that science does not always align with how you personally view the world is also one of its strengths.’
Alma Tostmann, epidemiologist and researcher at Radboud University Medical Centre
‘As researchers, we could do even more to convey the message that science serves everyone’s interests. It would be beneficial, for example, if young researchers were given the opportunity to teach lessons about science in schools, along the lines of the activities organised by the Science Hubs (Wetenschapsknooppunten). This would introduce pupils and teachers to the ways of thinking, observing, reasoning, and drawing conclusions that are part of doing research. Scientists need to be able to communicate well, but the public also needs a certain level of basic knowledge and an understanding that science is not a matter of opinion. I am concerned about these qualities being undermined by staff shortages in education.
‘Press releases about research emphasise breakthroughs, but in practice such a finding rarely leads to major changes. In the long run, this has a negative effect. We would do better to invest in nuanced outreach than to make false promises to the public.
‘During the coronavirus pandemic I was in frequent contact with politicians and policymakers, and I explained things to the general public on television and radio. I noticed then that politicians are held to account for something that is perfectly normal for scientists: changing your position on the basis of evolving insight. The public found it difficult to accept when we had to adjust course in response to the rapidly changing situation and new knowledge. I learnt from that experience how important it is, as a scientist, to stay within your own field – that is how you preserve your credibility.’
Laurens Hessels, philosopher of science and chemist at the Rathenau Institute and Leiden University
‘The surveys conducted by the Rathenau Institute show that high levels of trust in science have actually remained very stable over the years. To monitor whether trust in science fluctuates over time, a large group of people will be surveyed several times in the coming period. In 2021 we published the report Trusted Science, which shows that citizens’ trust in science is strongly linked to transparency. People have more trust when they can see what is happening in science. My own research concerns the interaction between scientists and society. Just as the authors of this study find, we see that science does not always connect well with the personal priorities of citizens. A promising solution is citizen science – citizen science – which brings science very close to home. Citizens and scientists sit around the table together. Particularly those Dutch people with a practical rather than academic education often have no researchers in their social circle.
Taking measurements yourself also communicates that your own experience counts. Together with the National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), I am investigating whether people who take their own measurements of problems in their living environment – such as noise and odour nuisance – develop greater trust in science. ‘I think current forms of science communication are still too often aimed at people with an academic background. Scientists who make podcasts or write blogs, or give a radio interview, could think about how to reach an even broader audience. It is important that they engage in dialogue with citizens, rather than simply broadcasting.’