{"id":3767,"date":"2019-08-02T15:18:39","date_gmt":"2019-08-02T15:18:39","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/ciresblogs.colorado.edu\/prometheus\/?p=3767"},"modified":"2019-08-02T15:18:40","modified_gmt":"2019-08-02T15:18:40","slug":"public-trust-that-scientists-work-for-the-good-of-society-is-growing","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/ciresblogs.colorado.edu\/prometheus\/2019\/08\/02\/public-trust-that-scientists-work-for-the-good-of-society-is-growing\/","title":{"rendered":"Public Trust that Scientists Work for the Good of Society is Growing"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<figure class=\"wp-block-image\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" width=\"660\" height=\"300\" src=\"https:\/\/ciresblogs.colorado.edu\/prometheus\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/36\/2019\/08\/chart.jpg\" alt=\"\" class=\"wp-image-3768\" srcset=\"https:\/\/ciresblogs.colorado.edu\/prometheus\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/36\/2019\/08\/chart.jpg 660w, https:\/\/ciresblogs.colorado.edu\/prometheus\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/36\/2019\/08\/chart-300x136.jpg 300w\" sizes=\"auto, (max-width: 660px) 100vw, 660px\" \/><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<p><em>But public confidence falters on questions of scientific transparency and integrity<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><a rel=\"noreferrer noopener\" aria-label=\"ScienceNews (opens in a new tab)\" href=\"https:\/\/www.sciencenews.org\/article\/public-trust-scientists-work-good-society-growing?tgt=nr\" target=\"_blank\"><em>ScienceNews<\/em><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>These days, it can seem as if science is under assault. Climatologists are routinely questioned about what\u2019s really causing global warming. Doctors can be disparaged for trying to vaccinate children against disease.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>But for the U.S. public at large, scientists are generally seen as a trustworthy bunch. In fact, 86 percent of Americans hold at least \u201ca fair amount\u201d of confidence that&nbsp;<a href=\"https:\/\/www.pewresearch.org\/science\/2019\/08\/02\/trust-and-mistrust-in-americans-views-of-scientific-experts\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">scientists work for the public good<\/a>, &nbsp;according to a survey released August 2 by the nonpartisan Pew Research Center in Washington, D.C.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>That\u2019s far better than how respondents felt about what motivates politicians (only 35 percent said they were fairly confident that elected officials acted in the public interest), journalists (47 percent) or even religious leaders (57 percent). And that general trust in the goodwill of scientists has grown steadily over the last four years, from 76 percent in 2016.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>But confidence falters on narrower questions of scientists\u2019 trustworthiness. For instance:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\"><li><strong>The kind of scientist matters.<\/strong>\u00a0Nearly half \u2014 48 percent \u2014 thought doctors gave fair and accurate information, but only 32 percent thought the same of medical researchers. Dieticians also were considered trustworthy by 47 percent of respondents, while that number fell to 24 percent for nutrition scientists. Overall, scientists whose work involved engaging with the public tended to be more trusted than those focused on research;<\/li><li><strong>How research is funded matters.<\/strong>\u00a0More than half of respondents \u2014 58 percent \u2014 said they are less trusting of studies financed by industry. And there\u2019s skepticism that scientists reveal all of their industry ties: Fewer than 2 in 10 people thought scientists always disclosed conflicts of interest with industry, or faced stern consequences for failing to do so;<\/li><li><strong>Sometimes, who is being asked matters.<\/strong>\u00a0On questions of scientific misconduct, black and Hispanic respondents were more likely than whites to see it as a \u201cbig problem.\u201d That could reflect wariness due to past cases of experiments being conducted without patients\u2019 consent, such as the decades-long\u00a0<a href=\"https:\/\/www.sciencenews.org\/archive\/ethics-human-experimentation\">Tuskegee Study<\/a>\u00a0in which hundreds of black men with syphilis were denied treatment (<em>SN: 3\/1\/75, p. 134<\/em>), the Pew report notes. Or it could reflect the fact that, when it comes to\u00a0<a href=\"https:\/\/www.sciencenews.org\/archive\/science-society-108\">environmental justice<\/a>, these communities are often more likely to be affected by unchecked pollution (<em>SN: 12\/6\/97, p. 366<\/em>).<\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>\u201cThe issue of trust in scientists is part of a broader conversation that society is having on the role and value of experts,\u201d says Cary Funk, the director of Pew\u2019s science and society research. \u201cWhat we wanted to do was get a look at the potential sources of mistrust.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Conducted from January 7 to January 21, the survey questioned 4,464 randomly selected adults who are demographically representative of the U.S. population, and has a margin of error of plus or minus 1.9 percentage points. It focused on three scientific fields: medicine, nutrition and environment. But it did not look at specific topics that have become highly politicized, for example,\u00a0<a href=\"https:\/\/www.sciencenews.org\/article\/vaccine-hesitancy-measles-motivational-interviewing\">childhood vaccination<\/a>\u00a0campaigns (<em>SN: 6\/8\/19, p. 16<\/em>) or\u00a0<a href=\"https:\/\/www.sciencenews.org\/blog\/science-public\/new-york-magazine-climate-change\">climate change<\/a>\u00a0(<em>SN Online: 7\/28\/17<\/em>).<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The growing trust in scientists is \u201creally great to see,\u201d says Jacob Carter, a research scientist for the Center for Science and Democracy at the Union of Concerned Scientists in Washington, D.C. But the fact that so few people had faith in scientific transparency and accountability was \u201ca bit disheartening to me as a scientist,\u201d he says. There are systems in place to prevent scientific misconduct and penalties \u201cif, for example, you\u2019re caught plagiarizing or fabricating results,\u201d he says.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The introduction in March of congressional legislation called the&nbsp;<a href=\"https:\/\/www.congress.gov\/bill\/116th-congress\/house-bill\/1709\/text?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22scientific+integrity+act%22%5D%7D&amp;r=1&amp;s=1\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">Scientific Integrity Act<\/a>&nbsp;marks a positive step toward building public trust in science, Carter says. The bill aims to prevent political interference in scientific policy and to allow government scientists to share research with the public, among other things.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The survey also found that 60 percent of Americans believes scientists deserve a place in debates over crafting science policy \u2014 though that result reveals a partisan divide. Among Democrats, 73 percent wanted scientists at the table in policy discussions, but that fell to 43 percent among Republicans.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Still, those numbers are encouraging, especially in a national survey covering all 50 U.S. states, says <strong>Max Boykoff<\/strong>, director of the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research at the University of Colorado Boulder. \u201cEmpowering scientists to step into these [policy] arenas is great,\u201d he says. \u201cCertain kinds of advocacy, I would argue, are part of their responsibility: advocacy for facts, empirical evidence, solid methodologies.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Overall, scientists have been more willing to step into the public arena in recent years. Thousands of scientists and science advocates joined the&nbsp;<a href=\"https:\/\/www.sciencenews.org\/blog\/science-public\/we-went-march-science-dc-heres-what-happened\">first annual March for Science<\/a>&nbsp;in 2017 in Washington, D.C. (<em>SN Online: 4\/22\/17<\/em>). Journalists have become more interested in covering science stories, and social media is carrying messages further across society. Boykoff noted that younger scientists especially have been open to speaking about their work, which has helped to make science more accessible to the public.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>And, in fact, the survey found that people overall were more trusting of research in areas that they were more familiar with. Two other key factors boosted confidence, too: whether research data was made publicly accessible and whether findings were reviewed by scientific peers.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>\u201cTrust is important to legitimacy, credibility and effectiveness,\u201d Boykoff says. \u201cWithout trust, scientists would just be screaming into the wind.\u201d<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>But public confidence falters on questions of scientific transparency and integrity ScienceNews These days, it can seem as if science is under assault. Climatologists are routinely questioned about what\u2019s really causing global warming. Doctors can be disparaged for trying to &hellip; <a href=\"https:\/\/ciresblogs.colorado.edu\/prometheus\/2019\/08\/02\/public-trust-that-scientists-work-for-the-good-of-society-is-growing\/\">Continue reading <span class=\"meta-nav\">&rarr;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":32,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[4],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-3767","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-news"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","publishpress_future_action":{"enabled":false,"date":"2026-05-12 02:14:01","action":"change-status","newStatus":"draft","terms":[],"taxonomy":"category"},"publishpress_future_workflow_manual_trigger":{"enabledWorkflows":[]},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/ciresblogs.colorado.edu\/prometheus\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3767","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/ciresblogs.colorado.edu\/prometheus\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/ciresblogs.colorado.edu\/prometheus\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ciresblogs.colorado.edu\/prometheus\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/32"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ciresblogs.colorado.edu\/prometheus\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3767"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/ciresblogs.colorado.edu\/prometheus\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3767\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3769,"href":"https:\/\/ciresblogs.colorado.edu\/prometheus\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3767\/revisions\/3769"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/ciresblogs.colorado.edu\/prometheus\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3767"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ciresblogs.colorado.edu\/prometheus\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3767"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ciresblogs.colorado.edu\/prometheus\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3767"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}