Trust in scientists finally starts to rise in the United States - but only easy

Trust in scientists finally starts to rise in the United States - but only easy

for the first time since Start of Covid-19-Pandemie The trust in scientists has increased in the United States-if only slightly, it shows A survey in the USA two weeks before the presidential elections was .

The survey published by the Pew Research Center in Washington DC today showed that the proportion of respondents who believe that scientists act in the best interest of the public, from 73 % a year ago to 76 % (see 'Modest Rise in Trust'). However, the trust lies below the 87 %, which had trust in scientists in April 2020, shortly after the Lockdowns begins. Alec Tyson, the main author of the report and deputy research director of the PEW Center, says: "This marks a new change from the declines and trust in science that we have observed during pandemic".

The results fit into other data that are good news for researchers. A survey of more than 70,000 people in 67 countries in 2022 and 2023 resulted in high trust values ​​in scientists, according to a propprint that was published in January on the OSF server 1 .

"There is no data that supports the argument for a general crisis of trust in science," says Naomi Oreskes, science historian at Harvard University in Cambridge, Massachusetts and co -author of the Preprint. She adds that PEW's results are "very comforting for the scientific community".

Some scientists fear that Donald Trump's re-election on November 5-who denies climate change and disparaging federal scientists-could undermine public trust in science and possibly indicate a tear between scientists and some parts of the US public. Districts do not yet know how political changes affect public opinion towards scientists, says Niels Mede, science communication researcher at the University of Zurich in Switzerland and co -author of the Preprint. But the timing of the PEW survey means that it can be used as a benchmark to pursue the attitudes to science during Trump's second term.

partisan division

Tyson and his colleagues interviewed 9,593 US residents from October 21 to 27 using online and telephone surveys. The participants were asked to indicate to what extent they agreed on intelligence, communication skills, compassion for the public and commitment of scientists in politics.

Almost 90 % of the survey participants who identified themselves as Democrat stated that scientists act in the best interest of the public. The value for Republicans was 66 % - 5 percentage points higher than in the previous year. However, the respondents were strongly divided whether scientists should participate in political debates on scientific topics, 51 % supported an active role and 48 % said that scientists should stay out of these debates.

This means that "people want to trust science, but are not always sure whether they can trust the scientists" to leave the personal prejudices aside when they have their influence, says Arthur Lupia, surveyor at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor.

The PEW report also found that only 45 % of the respondents believe that scientists are good communicators and 47 % think that scientists feel superior to others. Researchers who have spoken to Nature say that the scientific community should accept this feedback and react to it.

"It is one thing to discover something - it is another thing to explain it effectively," says Lupia. "So that science has a public value, we actually have to do both."

To solve the communication dilemma, says Oreskes that scientific courses should integrate more publicly -oriented writing and speaking in their curricula. Mede suggests that scientists take part in science in schools of children, participate in community projects and find other ways to communicate with people from face to face.

"There is an important opportunity for scientists, especially for those in government agencies," says Oreskes, "to make an honest review of the ways of how their communication strategies have failed during pandemic and to consider how they can do better in the future."

1. Cologna, V. et al. Preprint at OSF Preprints https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/6ay7s (2024).

Download references