The public trust scientists, but science journalists are uneasy? Hope not. #WCSJ2013
I have had many conversations with science journalists over that last few days that centred on the critical role science journalism has in holding science, and those that do it, to account in the public interest, whether they be in academia, or industry, or on behalf of government.
Some have said that there has been a catastrophic collapse of trust in established institutions over the last decade – whether it be big companies, government agencies, academic institutions, and in the case of the UK, the mainstream consumer media. And today I was in a session asking: “Can we still trust science?”, predicated on the perceived rise in retractions from peer-reviewed journals and high-profile instances of fraudulent science.
This worries me - that there may be an unease among science journalists that science is “not as trustworthy as it was”. In a very real sense, science journalists are the public face of science, and if they lose faith and trust in scientists, that loss of faith will pass on to the public at large. And we need people to trust in science (and scientists), if we are going to ask them (the public, policy-makers, politicians etc) make sound decisions based on it, whether it be in national climate policy or an individual medical decision in partnership with a physician.
Well, the good news, I think, is “yes, mostly”, if you ask science journalists. And Daniele Fanelli’s research at the University of Edinburgh indicates that there appears to be no conclusive evidence of an increased amount of fraudulent research. In fact, the apparent rise in retractions is not real, it is simply that scientists and science journalists are being held more to account, and they understand more what a retraction entails and when it should be considered.
And there is an apparent disconnect between these worries being voiced by science journalists about the trustworthiness of science, and the perception that the public have about the trustworthiness of scientists. Data from Edelman’s 2013 Trust Barometer say that the public feel that there are no ambassadors for a field more trusted than its scientists and subject matter. On the panel I was honoured to moderate at WCSJ 2013, panellist Dominique Leglu, cited a recent French study showing that public trust in scientists is high, especially when compared with trust in doctors.
So, the public trust scientists, and despite the data, science journalists are perhaps a little uneasy, sometimes. They are, after all closer to the science. In a very real sense, science journalists are partners with science in the stewardship of its reputation and trustworthiness among the public. I hope this disconnect does not evolve into narrative that undermines the public trust in science (if the data, as Fanelli’s appear to do, tell us that scientists merit that trust). That said, science must continue to maintain that trust itself.
