Public Trust In Science Research Articles

Consistent effects of science and scientist characteristics on public trust across political regimes

Recent years have seen an increased research interest in the determinants of public trust in science. While some argue that democracy should be the political regime most conducive to science, recent debates about salient scientific findings revealed considerable cracks in the public perception of science. We argue that existing cross-national work on trust in science is incomplete because it uses an aggregate concept of “science”. People in different political environments likely have different conceptions of what science is, which can have consequences for perceptions and trust. To remedy this shortcoming, we present results from a preregistered survey experiment in ten countries (N = 8441), which covers a broad spectrum of political regimes and tests how science and scientists’ characteristics influence public trust. We find that, against expectations, female scientists and scientists engaging in public activism are both perceived as more trustworthy. High-impact research is trusted more than low-impact research, and it does not matter whether a scientist is a co-national. Overall, our experiment reveals few differences across political regimes. Additional survey results show that respondents’ education and exposure to science have similar relationships with trust across autocratic and democratic countries. A striking difference we find is that while political orientation has little impact in autocratic countries, it is strongly related to trust across democracies as perceptions of science become increasingly politicized.

Messaging to Reduce Booster Hesitancy among the Fully Vaccinated.

Vaccine hesitancy was a serious problem in the United States throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, due in part to the reduction in public trust in science that accompanied the pandemic. Now we are facing a new, similar but more extensive problem: booster hesitancy. Even fewer Americans are current on the mRNA booster. We present the results of an experiment with residents of the US who received all initial doses of the mRNA vaccine but who were not up to date on the booster. Participants read a scientific explanation describing either the safety or the effectiveness of the boosters or nothing in the control group. The explanations significantly increased (compared to the control) participants' perceptions of the safety and effectiveness of the mRNA booster, as well as their willingness to get boosted. Explanations also improved emotions and attitudes toward the booster. Furthermore, although liberals were significantly more willing to get boosted than were conservatives, improvement due to the explanations was similar across political ideology groups. However, when interactions were observed, conservatives increased to a greater degree. Importantly, the explanations increased participants' perception of scientists' expertise and knowledge, as well as participants' trust in scientists and the vaccine technology.

Zero-covid advocacy during the COVID-19 pandemic: a case study of views on Twitter/X.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, many advocacy groups and individuals criticized governments on social media for doing either too much or too little to mitigate the pandemic. In this article, we review advocacy for COVID-19 elimination or "zero-covid" on the social media platform X (Twitter). We present a thematic analysis of tweets by 20 influential co-signatories of the World Health Network letter on ten themes, covering six topics of science and mitigation (zero-covid, epidemiological data on variants, long-term post-acute sequelae (Long COVID), vaccines, schools and children, views on monkeypox/Mpox) and four advocacy methods (personal advice and promoting remedies, use of anecdotes, criticism of other scientists, and ofauthorities). The advocacy, although timely and informative, often appealed to emotions and values using anecdotes and strong criticism of authorities and other scientists. Many tweets received hundreds or thousands of likes. Risks were emphasized about children's vulnerability, Long COVID, variant severity, and Mpox, and via comparisons with human immunodeficiency viruses (HIV). Far-reaching policies and promotion of remedies were advocated without systematic evidence review, or sometimes, core field expertise. We identified potential conflicts of interest connected to private companies. Our study documents a need for public health debates to be less polarizing and judgmental, and more factual. In order to protect public trust in science during a crisis, we suggest the development of mechanisms to ensure ethical guidelines for engagement in "science-based" advocacy, and consideration of cost-benefit analysis of recommendations for public health decision-making.

Against Disinformation: Bridging Science and Public Discourse

The Science and Society Research Group at the Ludovika University of Public Service organised a conference in Budapest on 13 October 2023 titled: ‘Science and disinformation: how science can support society against disinformation’. The conference explored the complex relationship between science, society, and disinformation. A panel discussion was held with the aim of examining the challenges and strategies for science communication in the context of the ever-increasing issues of dis-/misinformation. The discussion highlighted the multifaceted factors that influence public trust in science; the role of digital culture on science communication and scientific knowledge production; the impact of artificial intelligence; and the relationship between science and business developments on science disinformation, especially on science-related conspiracy theories. The participants helped shed light on how science communication strategies can be improved to stabilise trust in a multi-stakeholder information environment. This article summarises the main insights and conclusions from the discussion.

Populism, Research Integrity, and Trust. How Science-Related Populist Beliefs Shape the Relationship Between Ethical Conduct and Trust in Scientists

Abstract Science-related populism is often used to undermine public trust in science. Good scientific practice contributes to public trust in science, whereas misconduct promotes public skepticism. Since research ethics are a vital part of research integrity, we argue that ethical misconduct potentially undermines trust in scientists, particularly among people with populist beliefs. Drawing on a quota sample of German citizens (N = 1,321), the experimental study examines the influence of ethical conduct on trust in scientists, moderated by science-related populist beliefs. More specifically, we tested the influence of experimental deception (with and without debriefing) using a vignette design. The results of our study showed that ethical misconduct is negatively associated with trust in scientists. In addition, the relationship between ethical misconduct and trust in scientists was influenced by both science-related populist beliefs and science literacy. Although people with high science-related populist beliefs generally placed less trust in scientists, the negative effect was even more pronounced for people with low science-related populist beliefs. Our findings further revealed that ethical misconduct reduces trust in science among people with both low and high science literacy. This demonstrates the importance of researchers transparently discussing and reflecting on ethical research conduct to promote trust in scientists.

Journalism and public trust in science

Journalists are often the adult public’s central source of scientific information, which means that their reporting shapes the relationship the public has with science. Yet philosophers of science largely ignore journalistic communication in their inquiries about trust in science. This paper aims to help fill this gap in research by comparing journalistic norm conflicts that arose when reporting on COVID-19 and tobacco, among other policy-relevant scientific topics. I argue that the public’s image of scientists– as depositories of indisputable, value-free facts, trustworthy only when in consensus– makes it particularly difficult for journalists to ethically communicate policy-relevant science rife with disagreement. In doing so, I show how journalists, like scientists, face the problem of inductive risk in such cases. To overcome this problem, I sketch a model of trust in science that is grounded in an alternative image of scientists– what I call the responsiveness model of trust in science. By highlighting the process of science over its product, the responsiveness model requires scientists to respond to empirical evidence and the public’s values to warrant the public’s trust. I then show why this model requires journalists to be the public’s watchdogs by verifying and communicating whether scientists are being properly responsive both epistemically and non-epistemically.

Politicizing science funding undermines public trust in science, academic freedom, and the unbiased generation of knowledge.

This commentary documents how federal funding agencies are changing the criteria by which they distribute taxpayer money intended for scientific research. Increasingly, STEMM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics, and Medicine) funding agencies are requiring applicants for funding to include a plan to advance DEI ("Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion") in their proposals and to dedicate a part of the research budget to its implementation. These mandates undermine the academic freedom of researchers and the unbiased generation of knowledge needed for a well-functioning democracy. Maintaining excellence in science is fundamental to the continuation of the U.S. as a global economic leader. Science provides a basis for solving important global challenges such as security, energy, climate, and health. Diverting funding from science into activities unrelated to the production of knowledge undermines science's ability to serve humankind. When funding agencies politicize science by using their power to further a particular ideological agenda, they contribute to public mistrust in science. Hijacking science funding to promote DEI is thus a threat to our society.

Research integrity in the era of artificial intelligence: Challenges and responses.

The application of artificial intelligence (AI) technologies in scientific research has significantly enhanced efficiency and accuracy but also introduced new forms of academic misconduct, such as data fabrication and text plagiarism using AI algorithms. These practices jeopardize research integrity and can mislead scientific directions. This study addresses these challenges, underscoring the need for the academic community to strengthen ethical norms, enhance researcher qualifications, and establish rigorous review mechanisms. To ensure responsible and transparent research processes, we recommend the following specific key actions: Development and enforcement of comprehensive AI research integrity guidelines that include clear protocols for AI use in data analysis and publication, ensuring transparency and accountability in AI-assisted research. Implementation of mandatory AI ethics and integrity training for researchers, aimed at fostering an in-depth understanding of potential AI misuses and promoting ethical research practices. Establishment of international collaboration frameworks to facilitate the exchange of best practices and development of unified ethical standards for AI in research. Protecting research integrity is paramount for maintaining public trust in science, making these recommendations urgent for the scientific community consideration and action.

Values in public health: an argument from trust

Research on the role of values in science and objectivity has typically approached trust through its epistemic aspects. Yet, recent work on public trust in science has emphasized the role of non-epistemic values in building and maintaining trust. This paper will use a concept of trust that adds concerns about justice to epistemic conditions to investigate this problem in relation to public health. I will argue that trust-conducive values, particularly justice, are relevant in deciding which value influences are legitimate in scientific decision-making. Drawing on public health ethics, I will provide a consequentialist justification for employing trust-conducive values. While several concepts of justice have been explored in the context of public health, I will further draw on public health ethics, focusing on a view that brings together both distributive and procedural aspects. For illustration, I will use the case of cardiovascular disease prevention, particularly how concerns about justice apply when choosing between population-based and individual-based approaches.

Concerns about Contextual Values in Science and the Legitimate/Illegitimate Distinction

AbstractPhilosophers of science have come to accept that contextual values can play unavoidable and desirable roles in science. This has raised concerns about the need to distinguish legitimate and illegitimate value influences in scientific inquiry. I discuss here four such concerns: epistemic distortion, value imposition, undermining of public trust in science, and the use of objectionable values. I contend that preserving epistemic integrity and avoiding value imposition provide good reasons to attempt to distinguish between legitimate and illegitimate influences of values in science. However, the trust and the objectionable values concerns constitute no good reason for demarcation criteria.

Beyond the serotonin deficit hypothesis: communicating a neuroplasticity framework of major depressive disorder.

The serotonin deficit hypothesis explanation for major depressive disorder (MDD) has persisted among clinicians and the general public alike despite insufficient supporting evidence. To combat rising mental health crises and eroding public trust in science and medicine, researchers and clinicians must be able to communicate to patients and the public an updated framework of MDD: one that is (1) accessible to a general audience, (2) accurately integrates current evidence about the efficacy of conventional serotonergic antidepressants with broader and deeper understandings of pathophysiology and treatment, and (3) capable of accommodating new evidence. In this article, we summarize a framework for the pathophysiology and treatment of MDD that is informed by clinical and preclinical research in psychiatry and neuroscience. First, we discuss how MDD can be understood as inflexibility in cognitive and emotional brain circuits that involves a persistent negativity bias. Second, we discuss how effective treatments for MDD enhance mechanisms of neuroplasticity-including via serotonergic interventions-to restore synaptic, network, and behavioral function in ways that facilitate adaptive cognitive and emotional processing. These treatments include typical monoaminergic antidepressants, novel antidepressants like ketamine and psychedelics, and psychotherapy and neuromodulation techniques. At the end of the article, we discuss this framework from the perspective of effective science communication and provide useful language and metaphors for researchers, clinicians, and other professionals discussing MDD with a general or patient audience.

*READ**THIS*!! Spam as a threat for open science

Drawing on multiple sources of qualitative data, I describe a case of open science infrastructure (OSI) abuse. The case illustrates how developers navigated scholarly value tensions and issues of epistemic and platform legitimacy while battling spam on their open science webapp. Notably, their struggle used precious financial resources and drew attention away from other development tasks like feature expansion. This research makes evident that not only is OSI abuse like spam a financial burden, but it puts scholarly information security—specifically, the legitimacy of open science content—at risk. However, protecting against such abuse is not a trivial matter; it raises questions of who is responsible for defining and enforcing scholarly values. The urgency of this issue is magnified by OSI’s relationship to public trust in science.

The Role of the Public Sphere of Science in Fostering Public Trust in Science in Ukraine

Introduction. The war in Ukraine has created a challenging environment for scholarly research, as many researchers and institutions have found themselves in constrained conditions and resources. Furthermore, there has been a decline in public trust in institutions in Ukraine, including the scholarly community.Problem Statement. In Ukraine, public trust in science has been consistently low in recent years. This may have negative consequences for the development of science and technology in the country, as well as for public policy decisions that rely on scientifi c evidence. Therefore, there is a need to foster public trust in the science of Ukraine.Purpose. The purpose of this research is to identify the key tools and technologies of the public sphere of science, which can contribute to building trust in science among the Ukrainian public.Material and Methods. There have been used the methods of analysis, synthesis, comparison, structural, functional, system analysis, and integration.Results. The importance of the role of the public sphere of science in shaping public trust in scholarly research in Ukraine has been established. The main tools and technologies in the public sphere of science that can be used to engage the public and to enhance trust in science in Ukraine have been analyzed. The role of social media platforms, scientifi c webinars, scientifi c platforms, and scientifi c festivals in this process and their potential for engaging the public in scientifi c knowledge and research have been discussed.Conclusions. The importance of involving the public in scientifi c decision-making processes and engagement through organizing public discussions and debates has been concluded. Another crucial step is ensuring open access to scientifi c information and promoting greater transparency. Collaboration among research organizations, the public, the government, and other stakeholders is also vital to the development of eff ective scientifi c policies. The use of innovation technologies and digital tools facilitates interaction between science and the public. Ensuring access to scientifi c knowledge and scientifi c education contributes to increasing trust in science.

AI-Inclusivity in Healthcare: Motivating an Institutional Epistemic Trust Perspective.

This paper motivates institutional epistemic trust as an important ethical consideration informing the responsible development and implementation of artificial intelligence (AI) technologies (or AI-inclusivity) in healthcare. Drawing on recent literature on epistemic trust and public trust in science, we start by examining the conditions under which we can have institutional epistemic trust in AI-inclusive healthcare systems and their members as providers of medical information and advice. In particular, we discuss that institutional epistemic trust in AI-inclusive healthcare depends, in part, on the reliability of AI-inclusive medical practices and programs, its knowledge and understanding among different stakeholders involved, its effect on epistemic and communicative duties and burdens on medical professionals and, finally, its interaction and alignment with the public's ethical values and interests as well as background sociopolitical conditions against which AI-inclusive healthcare systems are embedded. To assess the applicability of these conditions, we explore a recent proposal for AI-inclusivity within the Dutch Newborn Screening Program. In doing so, we illustrate the importance, scope, and potential challenges of fostering and maintaining institutional epistemic trust in a context where generating, assessing, and providing reliable and timely screening results for genetic risk is of high priority. Finally, to motivate the general relevance of our discussion and case study, we end with suggestions for strategies, interventions, and measures for AI-inclusivity in healthcare more widely.

Earning epistemic trustworthiness: an impact assessment model

Epistemic trustworthiness depends not only on one’s epistemic but also on moral qualities. Such qualities need to be upheld by scientific communities and institutions as well as by individual scientific experts. While non-experts can often take scientific experts’ epistemic trustworthiness for granted, in some cases they cannot rationally treat it as the default, and they need to be convinced of the experts’ commitment to the well-being of others. This study contributes to philosophical discussions on public trust in science by introducing an impact assessment model. The model helps philosophers understand how scientific experts can build and maintain epistemic trustworthiness in relation to those social groups who have reasons to distrust scientists.

Straightening the ‘value-laden turn’: minimising the influence of extra-scientific values in science

Straightening the current ‘value-laden turn’ (VLT) in the philosophical literature on values in science, and reviving the legacy of the value-free ideal of science (VFI), this paper argues that the influence of extra-scientific values should be minimised—not excluded—in the core phase of scientific inquiry where claims are accepted or rejected. Noting that the original arguments for the VFI (ensuring the truth of scientific knowledge, respecting the autonomy of science results users, preserving public trust in science) have not been satisfactorily addressed by proponents of the VLT, it proposes four prerequisites which any model for values in the acceptance/rejection phase of scientific inquiry should respect, coming from the fundamental requirement to distinguish between facts and values: (1) the truth of scientific knowledge must be ensured; (2) the uncertainties associated with scientific claims must be stated clearly; (3) claims accepted into the scientific corpus must be distinguished from claims taken as a basis for action. An additional prerequisite of (4) simplicity and systematicity is desirable, if the model is to be applicable. Methodological documents from international institutions and regulation agencies are used to illustrate the prerequisites. A model combining Betz’s conception (stating uncertainties associated with scientific claims) and Hansson’s corpus model (ensuring the truth of the scientific corpus and distinguishing it from other claims taken as a basis for action) is proposed. Additional prerequisites are finally suggested for future research, stemming from the requirement for philosophy of science to self-reflect on its own values: (5) any model for values in science must be descriptively and normatively relevant; and (6) its consequences must be thoroughly assessed.

Increasing the influence of the Alzheimer’s research community in shaping the public narrative around AD interventions

AbstractAfter decades of failure in AD drug development, recent approvals signal a shift. The information associated with a new drug approval is scientifically complex and inaccessible to the general public. Historically, clinical researchers publish in scientific journals and rely on clinicians to distribute this information to the public. But with approximately 86%1 of Americans getting news from digital sources, social media has a large influence on public opinion of scientific topics. This influence was seen during the COVID pandemic and with the aducanumab approval. Many of the loudest voices are not scientifically motivated and may have conflicts of interest. It’s important to provide scientific voices.Method: A literature search identified concerns with dissemination of scientific information through social media. Best practices are described for educating the public on scientific topics and building public trust in science. In this context, we evaluate the current transition being experienced in the Alzheimer’s field, and lessons learned over the past several years.Result: Critical issues are: the lack of quality control of results, the tendency to believe the loudest voices, and unreported conflicts of interest. Due to the many failures in the Alzheimer’s field, many are vocal critics all AD data and the tendency is to maintain this negative approach. Many of the social media voices in the Alzheimer’s space have not been involved in AD research and may misrepresent results.Scientist Veerasathpurush Allareddy observed “On social media, scientists have to be clear and succinct, an incentive to eliminate jargon and streamline the message.”3Conclusion: As a field of AD researchers, we have an imperative to help shape the discussion around treatments in Alzheimer’s disease with clear, accurate and usable information. We can also encourage people in our communities to help us spread accurate scientific information as it becomes available to our research community.1. “More than eight‐in‐ten Americans get news from digital devices” https://www.pewresearch.org/fact‐tank/2021/01/12/more‐than‐eight‐in‐ten‐americans‐get‐news‐from‐digital‐devices/2. Huber B, Barnidge M, Gil de Zuniga H, Liu James. “Fostering public trust in science: The role of social media. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/335652963_Fostering_public_trust_in_science_The_role_of_social_mediaSCIENCE “Social media: Good or evil?” 10 Feb 2022 Vol 375, Issue 6581 pp. 608‐609 https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abo2409

Science communication gets personal: Ambivalent effects of self-disclosure in science communication on trust in science.

In an attempt to display themselves as warm, approachable, and trustworthy, researchers might reveal personal details about themselves (i.e., self-disclosure) when communicating their science to the public. Here, we test whether self-disclosure in science communication can actually increase public trust in science. We present six online experiments (overall N = 2,431), integrate their results in a mini meta-analysis, and report a field experiment in a science museum (N = 480): In sum, our findings suggest that self-disclosure leads to small, but measurable increases in laypeople's feelings of closeness toward researchers and perceptions of researchers' warmth-related trustworthiness; yet, self-disclosure also leads to decreases in competence-related trustworthiness perceptions. The credibility of scientific findings was, overall, unaffected by self-disclosing communication. Findings from the field study further question whether self-disclosure in science communication has any practical relevance. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

The importance of investing in data, models, experiments, team science, and public trust to help policymakers prepare for the next pandemic.

The COVID-19 pandemic has brought about valuable insights regarding models, data, and experiments. In this narrative review, we summarised the existing literature on these three themes, exploring the challenges of providing forecasts, the requirement for real-time linkage of health-related datasets, and the role of 'experimentation' in evaluating interventions. This literature review encourages us to broaden our perspective for the future, acknowledging the significance of investing in models, data, and experimentation, but also to invest in areas that are conceptually more abstract: the value of 'team science', the need for public trust in science, and in establishing processes for using science in policy. Policy-makers rely on model forecasts early in a pandemic when there is little data, and it is vital to communicate the assumptions, limitations, and uncertainties (theme 1). Linked routine data can provide critical information, for example, in establishing risk factors for adverse outcomes but are often not available quickly enough to make a real-time impact. The interoperability of data resources internationally is required to facilitate sharing across jurisdictions (theme 2). Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) provided timely evidence on the efficacy and safety of vaccinations and pharmaceuticals but were largely conducted in higher income countries, restricting generalisability to low- and middle-income countries (LMIC). Trials for non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) were almost non-existent which was a missed opportunity (theme 3). Building on these themes from the narrative review, we underscore the importance of three other areas that need investment for effective evidence-driven policy-making. The COVID-19 response relied on strong multidisciplinary research infrastructures, but funders and academic institutions need to do more to incentivise team science (4). To enhance public trust in the use of scientific evidence for policy, researchers and policy-makers must work together to clearly communicate uncertainties in current evidence and any need to change policy as evidence evolves (5). Timely policy decisions require an established two-way process between scientists and policy makers to make the best use of evidence (6). For effective preparedness against future pandemics, it is essential to establish models, data, and experiments as fundamental pillars, complemented by efforts in planning and investment towards team science, public trust, and evidence-based policy-making across international communities. The paper concludes with a 'call to actions' for both policy-makers and researchers.

How to Not Secure Public Trust in Science: Representative Values Versus Polarization and Marginalization

Abstract The demise of the value-free ideal constitutes a threat to public trust in science. One proposal is that, whenever making value judgments, scientists rely only on democratic values. Because the influence of democratic values on scientific claims and recommendations is legitimate, public trust in science is warranted. I challenge this proposal. Appealing to democratic values will not suffice to secure trust because of at least two obstacles: polarization and marginalization.