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 to strengthening ethical research culture on the institutional level, since responsible research and transparency concerning a possible conflict of interests in the case of impact-driven research must be seen as institutional responsibilities.
- Overpromising as a “pandemic” in research, with the associated complementary problem of media sensationalism, is proposed to be replaced by responsible promise management, notably on the institutional level and epistemic humility.
- Collaboration with industry and how motivated research changes perceptions of and trust in science, allowing also the interaction with society and inclusion of other sources of knowledge while maintaining institutional independence, scientific integrity, and academic freedom.
Their review of the above-mentioned factors of trust in science led to the summarization of their findings in the following take-home messages:
- Societal trust in science is intricately linked to various factors, encompassing the coherence of scientific consensus, the assigned role of science by government and policymakers, the extent of media reports on preliminary research, and the potential compromise of scientific objectivity through industry funding and conflicted interests.
- Addressing scientific misconduct’s long-term impact involves scrutinizing the enabling forces, adopting a ‘broken window’ perspective that views misconduct as opportunistic crime facilitated by the social ecology.
- Effective expectation management plays a crucial role in building or eroding public trust in science. Restraining overly enthusiastic researchers and mitigating media sensationalism is vital to prevent inflation and subsequent disappointment of public expectations.
- Scientific endeavours influenced by specific ideological or financial interests create cognitive dissonance, eroding trust in science as an impartial arbiter of truth. When science serves to shield products, companies, or industries from scrutiny, it depletes the public’s entrusted epistemic commons, eroding the goodwill associated with reliable explanations for how the world works.
- Operationalizing public trust in science necessitates addressing institutional factors, avoiding over-promising, and safeguarding scientific investigations from being exploited as mere lobbying tools. Striking this balance is vital for upholding public trust in science’s ability to provide reliable explanations.