What can we learn from the research on public trust in science?
Public trust in science has been an increasing focus of research and media attention. Rebecca Asher and Emily Jesper-Mir, Engagement Labs Leads at Wellcome, explain the rationale for our recent commissioned landscaping report and what it tells us about the research
Rebecca Asher
Emily Jesper-Mir
4-minute read
Rebecca Asher
Emily Jesper-Mir
4-minute read
Public trust in science is essential to improving human health. After all, why should people be expected to adopt treatments and other medical interventions unless the research behind them has earned their trust?
Currently public trust in science is quite high, but the science community can’t afford to be complacent.
There is plenty of research in this area, but identifying overarching trends and themes is not straightforward. The research is scattered and ranges across different geographies, disciplines, communities and points in time. And then there’s the question of how the sector should respond to these insights. What do they mean for how it goes about earning trust in practice?
Wellcome and RAND Europe have published a set of three reports on Public Trust in Science and Scientific Trustworthiness
Beyond expertise
Although trust in science is generally moderate to high, overall patterns mask substantial variation. Trust levels differ between countries, and a small but significant number of people do not have trust in science.
Distrust may be warranted at times and - whatever the cause - it can have a disproportionate impact on the spread of misinformation or on policy (for example it may influence the extent to which scientific evidence is taken into account in policy making).
But public trust is only one part of the picture. To earn people’s trust, scientists must be trustworthy. As the report says, this is the foundation for building and maintaining trust. The review identified five qualities that demonstrate trustworthiness:
- Expertise
- Integrity
- Benevolence
- Transparency
- Responsiveness
Scientists often prioritise demonstrating expertise. This is necessary but it is not sufficient. People also want to see that the scientific community is independent, driven by positive motives, open and willing to listen to their concerns.
These qualities will be demonstrated in different ways at different levels. For example:
- At an individual (micro) level, a scientist can demonstrate transparency by being upfront about the limits of a piece of research.
- At an institutional level (meso) organisations can publish the processes they use to ensure high research standards.
- At a systems level (macro), it means embedding an open research approach.
Although being responsive and open to conversations with people is a key element of trustworthiness, it is the least visible of the five qualities. Despite the widespread inclusion of public engagement in research projects, scientists are unlikely to mention it and one-way communication is common, especially on social media. The report recommends that the scientific community talks more about the engagement it does as part of research and be more responsive in its communication, using a mix of platforms and online and in person activities.
It also highlights areas where it would be useful to do more research such as finding out more about the basis for active distrust, how communicating uncertainty signals transparency and how public engagement contributes to public trust.
From insights to action
This landscaping report reveals that earning public trust in science is about showing how science works, why it matters and whose interests it serves rather than asserting authority. The scientific community at all levels has a role to play in this, including funders like Wellcome.
In our work, we are already using these findings as part of evidence-based guidance for research leaders on trustworthy communication which we are producing in partnership with Kings College London and Sense about Science. We will also be using it in our evaluation of a group of projects testing innovative methods to hold constructive conversations between researchers and members of the public on sensitive and emerging areas of science.
We look forward to seeing the insights from the report shape activities and planning across the community. Its findings and recommendations are invaluable as we all do the serious work needed to earn people’s trust and strive for a healthier future for everyone.
Engagement Labs
Rebecca Asher and Emily Jesper-Mir work in a job share as Engagement Labs Leads at Wellcome. The Labs generate evidence and pilot and evaluate methods to deepen understanding of how to earn public trust in science.
Tags
