Dear Commons Community,
Holden Thorp Editor-in-Chief, of Science, had an editorial yesterday reporting on the results of the latest Pew Research Center survey of public perceptions of science. A key finding of the survey was that 76% of Americans express a great deal or fair amount of confidence in scientists to act in the public’s best interests. This is up slightly from 73% in October 2023 and represents a halt to the decline seen during the COVID-19 pandemic. Scientists continue to enjoy strong relative standing compared with the ratings Americans give to many other prominent groups, including elected officials, journalists and business leaders.
Below is the entire editorial.
Positive news and good opinion piece!
Tony
———————————————–
The Pew Research Center survey on trust in science and researchers is conducted every year by science policy experts and communicators. This year’s results, released last week, give a small, but meaningful, reason to be optimistic: Trust in scientists, which took a substantial hit during the pandemic, is starting to recover. The survey, conducted in October 2024 with 9593 adults across the United States, estimates that 76% of Americans now have a great deal or fair amount of confidence in scientists to act in the public’s best interests. That’s a modest uptick from 73% last year and a hopeful sign that the page may be turning on some of the pandemic-era skepticism. Although the increase is barely outside the margin of error, it may mark the end of a troubling 3-year decline. However, the data reveal a persistent problem—a considerable portion of the public continues to harbor negative views of scientists’ personal qualities, particularly their communication skills. This reality should be worrisome to the scientific community and drive a collective conversation about rebuilding public confidence.
Despite the slight improvement in American confidence in science, partisan divisions persist. A sizable majority of Democrats (88%) express confidence in scientists to act in the public’s best interests, a figure largely unchanged since before the pandemic. Conversely, trust among Republicans, although improved from the previous year (61%), remains notably lower at 66%, and still below prepandemic levels. This partisan divide extends to the question of scientists’ involvement in policy debates. Two-thirds of Democrats endorse scientists taking an active role in policy discussions regarding scientific matters, with a majority (61%) believing that they currently lack sufficient influence in shaping policy. In stark contrast, the majority of Republicans (64%) advocate for scientists to remain detached from policy debates and focus solely on establishing scientific facts.
The survey results also reveal how scientists’ personal qualities are viewed. Although a large majority of Americans (89%) consider research scientists to be intelligent, fewer than half of Americans (45%) describe them as good communicators. Other negative traits include social awkwardness (49% agree) and a sense of superiority (47% agree). As a scientist with a diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder (ASD), I understand how this can be perceived. Autistic traits include an inability to read nonverbal cues and a tendency to bluntness in speech. Certainly, only a fraction of scientists have received—or would receive—an ASD diagnosis, but as psychologist Simon Baron-Cohen discusses in The Pattern Seekers, these traits tend to go along with the ability to systematize information, even in neurotypical individuals. Between these realities and the fictional parody of scientists as blunt and awkward in TV situation comedies, these perceptions may be hard to shake.
This leads to the critical question of what to do in response to the Pew data as the country heads into another period of likely contention. On the basis of the feedback Science receives on commentaries published on this page, some scientists believe a full-throated opposition to every attack is necessary and appropriate, whereas others prefer to stay in their lane. And as Marcia McNutt, president of the US National Academy of Sciences, stated on this page last week, science should be an apolitical endeavor. But there is also another way—one of strategic restraint about when and how to engage combined with an unwavering commitment to scientific values. Katharine Hayhoe, an atmospheric scientist who is widely praised for her ability to communicate with diverse audiences about climate change, thinks a choice between advocacy and objectivity is a false dichotomy. “As philosophers have long argued,” she told me by email, “engaging with society isn’t a betrayal of science; it’s a fundamental part of its purpose, especially in complex crises like those we face today. Claiming that science is value-free ignores the reality in which we live: Every step, from research to societal dialogue, carries ethical weight.”
It’s crucial for scientists to talk openly about these questions. In the coming months, Science will publish on this topic from a range of viewpoints, and I will continue to quote different perspectives in my columns. The scientific community has an opportunity to learn from the past and plan for the future. As Hayhoe said to me, “Scientists aren’t only brains in jars; we’re human beings embedded in society, bringing both reason and principles to our work.” Scientists must find new approaches to project this humanity in ways that work.
This entry is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International license.
