How does political polarization affect trust in scientific institutions? What do we know about how that trust can be lost and gained? These were the big questions discussed when the American Academy of Arts and Sciences hosted a Morton L. Mandel Conversation in October.
Panelists Sean M. Decatur (American Museum of Natural History) and Naomi Oreskes (Harvard University), in conversation with Holden Thorp (American Association for the Advancement of Science), talked about the interrelations of polarization, institutions, and the public’s trust in science. Their experiences provided the conversation with academic, journalistic, and institutional contexts. The conversation also built on the Academy’s commitment – set forth most recently in the work of the Public Face of Science project – to further the conversation about scientific trust and enterprise and advance ideas that can restore confidence in scientific institutions.
Historical causes of distrust in science were a focus initially. Oreskes pointed out that the distrust we feel today has been building for decades, though perhaps exacerbated by the pandemic. Decatur agreed, mentioning a need for institutions to acknowledge historical practices of exclusion. Data shows that trust in science is declining at a slower pace than trust in government and academic institutions which begs the question, would it be beneficial to decouple science from government and if so, can it be done?
The ensuing discussion included an exploration of the distinction between trusting technology and not trusting medicine and society. Questions from the audience gave emphasis to the fact that the messenger matters, and local messengers are more trusted. One strategy for bridging divides was to tailor messages to what each audience found important, as more data and facts are not necessarily effective. To gain and sustain credibility, scientific institutions must hold true to their values, even when topics and funding sources are controversial.
The panelists agreed that to rebuild trust, science must brand itself as data and knowledge that changes over time when discoveries are made. Further, they suggested that it was important to acknowledge changing information over time, which means avoiding airs of elitism and omniscience.
Although rebuilding trust will be difficult and will take time, participants agreed that if leaders meet people where they are, practice patience, and encourage experienced scientists to become public communicators (if they so choose), then progress can be made.