We live in a digital age. How does this change public trust in science?

In popular media, scientists chase down criminals, solve medical mysteries, and always seem to have the answers the most complicated of questions. 🔎

In our Western enlightened culture, we’re taught to trust scientists implicitly. But what happens when scientists seem to disagree with each other? Or, as with many in the U.S., what happens when scientists seem to disagree with our own communities and values?

Setting aside those vocal groups opposed to science as a whole, most people in the U.S. still trust scientists either a great deal or a fair amount (second row below):

According to a 2017 Pew survey, 21% of U.S. adults trust scientists “a great deal” and 55% trust scientists “a fair amount.” Source

More than 3/4 of the U.S. trusts scientists at least a fair amount, and only 4% report not trusting scientists at all. That’s not too bad, especially compared to elected officials, for example — 19% of the U.S. report no confidence in elected officials.

We tend to trust scientists overall, but it also depends on the topic. Some of the most controversial topics probably won’t surprise anyone: climate change, genetic modification (GM) as it relates to food safety, and climate change. In the below poll, Pew found that many Americans (1) are skeptical of the scientific understanding of climate change and GM in particular, and (2) believe that scientists are in disagreement about all three of these topics.

U.S. adults are more skeptical of certain types of science. Source

Science skepticism isn’t limited to these three topics, though.

Source

Genetic engineering, astrophysics, evolution, psychology, and archaeology are among disciplines ranked at the lower end of the precision spectrum, meaning that the public found information from those types of science to be less certain and potentially less trustworthy.

Bastiaan T Rutjens, an assistant professor of psychology at the University of Amsterdam in the Netherlands, reported research findings in 2017 that might help explain why people trust some types of science less.

Rutjens and colleagues surveyed representative samples of American adults and compared participants’ self-reported trust in science (based on statements like, “We believe too often in science, and not enough in feelings and faith” and “Overall, modern science does more harm than good”) with factors like age, gender, religious ideology, political ideology, and support for science. Their study found four primary predictors of science acceptance and skepticism: political ideology, religiosity, morality, and knowledge about science.

This study has a few noteworthy findings. Firstly, mistrust of science does not stem primarily from political ideology. In fact, according to this study, political ideology only significantly predicted for one of the types of science they catalogued: climate change skepticism. Second, religious orthodoxy was the strongest negative predictor of trust in science overall (Beta = −.43, p < .001, 95% confidence interval, for any science nerds among us — in simple terms, this means that the more people adhere to their religion, the more likely they are to mistrust science). And third, scientific illiteracy was the strongest predictor for vaccine skepticism.

The lesson here? Mistrust of science is more complicated than you might think. Though there may be some people who mistrust the entire scientific enterprise, there are also a lot of people who question particular types of science for a wide variety of reasons.

There’s no singular problem to solve, here, unfortunately. And that means there’s no single solution.

How much do we trust the media?

We have established that public trust in science is variable. The reasons people don’t trust science depend entirely on the topic. The question , though, was, how does a shift to online news consumption change trust in science, if at all?

To answer that question, let’s first look at public trust in science news overall. Science reporters seem to be few and far between these days, but they still serve as an important source of science information, at least in part because they translate science for the public. How much do we trust science news?

Turns out, we still trust scientific experts the most to give us full and accurate information, especially on the more controversial topics. We don’t trust them a lot — 35% of people trust scientists about GM foods — but we still trust them way more than the news media.

U.S. adults trust scientists more than other groups to give full and accurate information. Source

You might have noticed this phenomenon in the very first figure above, as well, which I’ll recap here so you don’t have to scroll: the military are trusted more than scientists (79% trust the military, and 76% trust scientists at least a fair amount). Scientists are trusted more than K-12 education leaders (66%), who are trusted more than religious leaders (52%), who are in turn trusted more than media reporters(38%). Elected officials come in last at 27%.

News media are among the least trustworthy information sources for any kind of information.

We may not trust the media, but we still use it.

We still use the media, but the way in which we access news and information is changing.

We used to get our news from a few homogenized media sources, like the evening news and newspapers. Now, though, with a 24-hour news cycle and a plethora of content producers, information is available on demand. As far back as 2006, almost 90% of Internet users claimed they had looked up scientific information online. Television as a source of news is dropping, and online news sources are growing:

U.S. adults are increasingly getting their news online. Source

Only 10% of people in the U.S. say they don’t use the Internet for anything at all — those not accessing the Internet tend to be older, for one. They also fall along similar education levels (more frequently less than high school education) and lower socioeconomic levels.

Though the reasons people don’t have Internet access are myriad, there are probably reasons to believe that online information consumption will grow. For example, 49% of those 18–29 say they are online “almost constantly.” If that’s the case, then we can probably assume more people will get science information online in the future, as well.

So we get more information online. So what?

According to a 2016 marketing report, people don’t trust online news as much as they trust friends and family, newspapers, and TV. Remember that the statistics above dealt with controversial science topics in particular. For other topics, we actually tend to trust some of the more traditional media outlets more than newer media outlets:

We trust friends, family, newspapers, and television more than the Internet. Source

Social media is trusted even less.

We trust social media much less than local news organizations, national news organizations, and family, friends and acquaintances. Source

Although we use online sources more, we trust them less.

Combine a lower trust of online news, a very low trust of news media to report on scientific information, and a growth in people getting their news online these days, and we have what looks to be a bleak future for public trust in science news.

Solutions?

According to researchers at Carnegie Mellon University, the public understands scientific information better when the results of one study are discussed, as opposed to a public defense of an entire branch of science.

Tempering that claim, however — one of the greatest misunderstandings between scientists and the public is the perception of uncertainty. For science, uncertainty is the norm. In fact, failed studies are useful, if not as lauded as successful, groundbreaking studies. Failed studies tell other scientists where not to look or what methods not to use. For those not as well versed in the scientific process, though, uncertainty clashes with popular science representation. If scientists don’t know the answer right away, maybe the hero dies or the spaceship crashes. Real science is less certain, less immediate, and less fantastical, but just as exciting (depending on who you ask) simply because of its potential to give us answers to difficult questions in the future. Perhaps one solution, therefore, could be science literacy education.

Can scientists also be part of the solution? Since we trust scientists significantly more than other groups to deliver scientific information, why not let them use new online platforms, making scientific information more accessible for media professionals and the public alike?

“Before the Internet, a scientist could only disseminate their work through professional conferences or journals, but now they can log on and give back their research…These are growing pains — there’s no clear-cut path, but any time info gets out there, it’s for the betterment of science.” (source)

As Louise Leif laments, scientists are often discouraged from interacting with the media and the public. Incentives to publish in scientific journals are often much higher than incentives to disseminate science publicly.

Perhaps scientists and science organizations can begin to take on a stronger role in online communication. This largely depends on the individual and organization, but there are many science organizations who already employ communication experts. I should know — for the last several years, I was one of them.

Another potential solution — niche media. In a story about how Americans get their science information, most Americans said that while they get their science news from general news outlets, they also thought specialty sources got the science right more often.

More than half of people get their science news from general news sources, but they also rank specialty media higher in terms of science accuracy. Source

Specialty media like documentaries, science magazines, online discussion forums, science centers, and museums can pick up the media differentiation trend to reach target audiences in a more effective way. Maybe virtual reality or more targeted media production will help bridge the science-media knowledge gap.

Although the future of scientific information reporting may seem dismal, perhaps science news, like much of American media, simply needs to undergo a paradigm shift to accommodate how Americans are getting their news.

How do you get your science news?