The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) hosted the “Trust in Science: Understanding the Trends and Implications for Science Communication” webinar on May 30. Experts discussed the complexities of the public’s trust in science and its profound implications for society.
[See the agenda]
The panel discussion featured moderator Mariette DiChristina, PhD, Boston University, along with speakers Liz Hamel from the Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF), Katherine Ognyanova, PhD, Rutgers University, and Arthur Lupia, PhD, University of Michigan, and former Director of the Social, Behavioral and Economic Sciences Directorate at the National Science Foundation. The ‘researchers considered the differences between credibility, confidence, and trust; described new empirical findings; and discussed the implications for how to communicate science in a complex information landscape.’
Surveys assessing public confidence in science have indicated a decline in trust in recent years, albeit slower than other institutions. Dr. Lupia emphasized specific areas where trust levels have remained relatively high. His research article, ‘Trends in U.S. Public Confidence in Science and Opportunities for Progress,’ revealed that an overwhelming majority of Americans agree on fundamental expectations regarding actions scientists should take. For instance, “84% respond that it is “somewhat important” or “very important” for scientists to disclose their funders (Lupia et al., 2024)
The public’s level of confidence in science was deemed a significant predictor of health behaviors and their political beliefs. From vaccine hesitancy to trust in other institutions, the panelists urged a reevaluation of communication strategies and community engagement efforts. This conversation underscored the necessity of effective science communication in cultivating societal trust. Lupia mentioned the importance of instilling procedural legitimacy in the scientific methods and institutions. This would ensure that the public could build a positive relationship with the scientific process.
The speakers also emphasized the crucial role of science education in schools for fostering critical thinking and source evaluation. This aligns with findings from Gale M. Sinatra, PhD and Barbara K. Hofer, PhD, published authors in our PIBBS Journal, who highlighted that, “education can cultivate deep understanding and utilize instructional scaffolds to develop critical thinking, facilitating the pathway to science comprehension and acceptance (Sinatra & Hofer, 2016).”
A poignant reminder emerged during the webinar regarding the importance of diversity in science and healthcare. Speakers emphasized the need to elevate marginalized voices and address historical mistrust among underrepresented communities.
The “Trust in Science” webinar provided invaluable insights into the complexities of trust in science and the urgent need for effective science communication strategies. To effectively address these challenges, we should prioritize empathy, transparency, and inclusivity in our communication strategies.
Citations:
Sinatra, G. M., & Hofer, B. K. (2016). Public Understanding of Science. Policy Insights From the Behavioral and Brain Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1177/2372732216656870
Lupia, A., Allison, D. B., Jamieson, K. H., Heimberg, J., Skipper, M., & Wolf, S. M. (2024). Trends in U.S. public confidence in science and opportunities for progress. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 121(11), e2319488121. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2319488121
