In today’s rapidly changing environment, the necessity of a common understanding of scientific facts is highlighted as vital for constructive discourse. A study led by researchers from ETH Zurich and the University of Zurich reveals that trust in science remains relatively strong, with 75% of people trusting scientists’ expertise. However, skepticism has risen due to political misuse of science. Engaging the public is essential, yet scientists must balance visibility with objectivity to maintain credibility and foster informed discussions.
The Role of Science in Society
In our fast-paced world, news can emerge in mere seconds, prompting instantaneous opinions and heated discussions. While disputes are a part of everyday life, a stable social coexistence relies on certain aspects of reality being universally accepted. Science stands out as the primary tool to establish a common foundation of facts, making it essential for productive dialogue.
Trust in Science: A Recent Study
A pressing question has surfaced in recent years: Is there a crisis of trust in science? A comprehensive study spearheaded by Viktoria Cologna from ETH Zurich and Niels G. Mede from the University of Zurich, published in “Nature Human Behaviour,” sheds light on this topic. This research involved an international team of 241 researchers who surveyed 71,922 individuals across 68 countries over a span of ten months. Utilizing the same polling institute and questionnaire, the study aimed to define the concept of science uniformly. Despite the inherent challenges of comparative surveys, the current study strives to provide a reliable basis for analysis.
The authors of the study conclude that there is no significant crisis of trust. While a direct comparison to pre-pandemic trust levels is unavailable, the findings indicate that trust in science remains moderately high, with roughly 75% of respondents expressing confidence in scientists’ expertise, and 57% considering them honest. Switzerland is positioned in the middle tier of this spectrum, trailing behind Germany and various Scandinavian and African nations.
However, being in the middle tier is not sufficient. The importance of trust in science cannot be overstated, and there is a need for improvement. Yet, interpreting the data solely in this light would be misleading.
One does not need to be an aficionado of science fiction to envision a world where science, as the ultimate authority, devolves into a dystopian reality. The COVID-19 pandemic amplified skepticism, as political leaders often cited “scientific” results to justify their decisions, leading to a climate where criticism was equated with irrationality. This trend poses a threat to the core of scientific inquiry, which thrives on the ability to make mistakes and learn from them—this necessitates a baseline of skepticism.
Philosopher Hannah Arendt articulated that as independent thinking diminishes, so does the essence of “living humanity.” Science doesn’t require blind faith; it thrives on active engagement and discourse.
For meaningful discourse to occur, a basic understanding of scientific processes is crucial. The study reveals a significant statistic: 83% of participants expressed a desire for researchers to engage more with the general public.
However, this presents potential risks. When scientists take the stage as representatives of “science,” they may inadvertently blend objective knowledge with personal beliefs, morphing from impartial informants into political players. This shift can undermine their credibility.
Some researchers advocate for maintaining a degree of social invisibility for science, a notion that is fundamentally flawed. The demand for invisibility equates to a plea for blind trust. It is through visibility that scientists can articulate their methodologies and findings effectively.
The primary mission of science is to uncover facts, while it is the responsibility of citizens to interpret these facts and form reasoned positions in discussions. This process calls for not just increased trust, but also a greater understanding of research dynamics—more transparency, more communication, and more enlightenment.