Declining Public Trust in Science During the Trump and COVID Eras
Recent years, overlapping the Trump administration and the COVID-19 pandemic, have witnessed a notable decline in public confidence in the scientific community. A recent survey by the Pew Research Center revealed that about 10% of Americans now support science less than they did prior to the pandemic.
The findings from the November survey also indicated that the number of people who trust scientists “a great deal” or “a fair amount” has remained relatively unchanged since 2021. The president of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences commented on the survey results, suggesting they provide a chance to reconsider approaches to rebuilding public trust in science.
However, the explanations offered by scientific leaders for this erosion of trust are not new. They typically argue that the public’s lack of scientific understanding is to blame—a viewpoint that may be comforting for scientists but does little to foster trust. Instead, it might be more accurate to consider that the public’s distrust stems not from a perception of scientists as unreliable fact-finders but from doubts about their ethical standards.
Support Science Journalism
If you find value in this discussion, consider supporting our journalism with a subscription. Your contribution helps continue the delivery of influential stories that shape our understanding of important scientific developments and ideas.
In response to the survey, various news sources like the Washington Post and the New York Times reported that the public’s dwindling trust is due to a misunderstanding of scientific facts concerning COVID-19 treatments, the effectiveness of masks, virus origins, social distancing impacts, and vaccine efficacy. These reports suggest that the scientific community is now more adept at explaining how scientific data can evolve and change over time and recognizing the need for humility in making scientific assertions.
Yet, these responses continue to reflect an outdated belief in the “knowledge deficit” model of science communication, where public support for science is thought to be lacking due to insufficient understanding. This model has been largely discredited as a significant factor in public support for scientific endeavors.
It’s clear that the real issue isn’t about scientific facts per se. Historical conflicts in the U.S., like the 1925 “Scopes Monkey Trial” and the 2005 courtroom debates over “intelligent design,” demonstrate that the root of many disputes is not about facts but about moral values. For instance, objections to research on human embryos from religious groups don’t typically dispute the scientific understanding of embryonic development but rather challenge the ethical implications assigned by scientists.
Moreover, resistance to scientific claims often stems from moral concerns. Take, for instance, William Jennings Bryan during the Scopes Trial, who opposed Darwinian theories not just to defend biblical interpretations but also because he believed such theories morally corrupted society and contributed to global conflicts like World War I.
Additional insights from the Pew survey reveal that 36 percent of respondents feel scientists overlook societal moral values. When asked whether scientists should stay out of policy debates or take an active role, Americans are split evenly. This suggests that many fear scientists might impose their moral perspectives in policy discussions, a concept they are uncomfortable with due to perceived differences in values.
This perception that scientists lack moral alignment with the public isn’t new. Cultural depictions of scientists, such as the infamous Dr. Frankenstein, have long portrayed them as ethically deficient, focusing on their disregard for community values rather than factual accuracy in their experiments.
Therefore, the decline in trust during the COVID era may not be primarily due to misunderstandings about science but rather because scientists were seen as endorsing certain politicized moral choices that prioritized public health over other societal concerns like economic activity, education, and individual freedoms.
To rebuild trust, it is crucial for scientists to openly discuss their ethical values. While their values may not always align perfectly with those of the broader public, emphasizing common moral grounds, such as the universal desire to alleviate human suffering seen in COVID research, could help bridge the gap.
Discussing ethical values may be challenging for the scientific community, traditionally focused on being “value-free” and objective. However, avoiding moral discussions has proven ineffective. It’s time for a change in how scientists communicate about their work and its implications.
This article presents opinions and analyses, and the viewpoints expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of Scientific American.
Similar Posts
- Why People Really Distrust Science: It’s Not About the Scientists!
- Stop Taking Moral Advice from ChatGPT: Why It’s a Bad Idea!
- Racial Bias Against Black Scientists in Nobel Prize Selections Exposed!
- U.S. Uses Passenger Planes to Track Greenhouse Gases Nationwide!
- UFOs and U.S. Drone Panic: History Repeats with Sky-High Fear!
Cameron Aldridge combines a scientific mind with a knack for storytelling. Passionate about discoveries and breakthroughs, Cameron unravels complex scientific advancements in a way that’s both informative and entertaining.