IANUS editorial team

The IANUS partner, Radboud University, conducted a historical case study of trust in climate science and climate change. They reviewed and commented on various survey results on public perceptions of climate change across different regions and times. The following list presents the main surveys analyzed, accompanied by their corresponding results: Eurobarometer 2021 and 2023In the […]

Even if we can appreciate the role SciComm has to play in building and fostering trust in science, it comes with important limitations. First, if we want to engage in effective SciComm dissemination to repair people’s trust in science, we must remind ourselves that this is contradictory in and of itself. This is because, conceptually,

In a previous article, we discussed the importance of caring about Science Communication and introduced the notion that SciComm can be understood as a communication activity between parties. When we understand SciComm this way, we can start considering communication-specific predictors of trust, such as features related to the communication medium or to the format of

Science Communication is a broad and evolving field that includes diverse encounters of different publics with science or scientific issues. With a focus on the academic field of science communication (SciComm), partners from IANUS WP2, and especially RU, offer an overview of contemporary approaches to SciComm and a critical analysis of the relation between SciComm

IANUS partner EUR conducted a scoping review on academic discourse, policy documents and media regarding the current state of knowledge on trust and confidence in science. EUR researchers further focus on the following three contentious issues of relevance to fostering trust in science:  The current shift in the discourse on research misconduct from penalizing individuals

During its first year, the IANUS partners organised three stakeholder workshops with a diverse group of prominent societal experts from various disciplines. The aim has been to map the landscape of trust in science and its underlying forces and attractors, as well as to receive input towards the project’s activities. The consultation workshops took the

The IANUS project aimed to explore public opinion within the science and technology ecosystem and thus led to the Wellcome Global Monitor, which stands out for its valuable approach. It gauges trust and mistrust by posing specific questions and analysing responses from citizens. Thus, the IANUS team analysed the Wellcome Global Monitor 2018 data, which

The IANUS project focuses exclusively on trust in science and thus needs to develop a concept of governance of trustworthiness in science. In view of the complexity and multi-layered nature of the concept of trust in science, the various starting points regarding the governance of science shall be clarified with the help of a simple