{"id":105170,"date":"2017-12-08T11:18:49","date_gmt":"2017-12-08T16:18:49","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/alpha.pewresearch.org\/pewresearch-org\/2017\/12\/08\/mixed-messages-about-public-trust-in-science-2\/"},"modified":"2024-04-14T04:18:15","modified_gmt":"2024-04-14T09:18:15","slug":"mixed-messages-about-public-trust-in-science-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/alpha.pewresearch.org\/pewresearch-org\/science\/2017\/12\/08\/mixed-messages-about-public-trust-in-science-2\/","title":{"rendered":"Mixed Messages about Public Trust in Science"},"content":{"rendered":"

This article<\/a> was originally published in the Fall 2017 edition of\u00a0Issues in Science and Technology<\/a>\u00a0magazine.<\/span><\/em><\/p>\n\n

For many years, the scientific community has been wondering\u2014and often worrying\u2014about the extent to which the public trusts science. Some observers have warned of a \u201cwar on science,\u201d and recently some have expressed concern about the rise of populist antagonism to the influence of experts.<\/p>\n\n

But public confidence in the scientific community appears to be relatively strong, according to a nationally representative survey of adults in the United States by the Pew Research Center in 2016. Furthermore, scientists are the only group among the 13 institutions covered in the General Social Survey conducted by the National Opinion Research Center where public confidence has remained stable since the 1970s. However, this favorable attitude is somewhat tepid. Only four in 10 people reported a great deal of confidence in the scientific community.<\/p>\n\n

A series of other Pew Research Center studies, however, have revealed that public trust in scientists in matters connected with childhood vaccines, climate change, and genetically modified (GM) foods is more varied. Overall, many people hold skeptical views of climate scientists and GM food scientists; a larger share express trust in medical scientists, but there, too, many express what survey analysts call a \u201csoft\u201d positive rather than a strongly positive view.<\/p>\n\n

There are, of course, important differences in opinions about scientists in each of these domains. For example, people\u2019s views about climate scientists vary strongly depending on their political orientation, consistent with more than a decade of partisan division over this issue. But public views about GM food scientists and medical scientists are not strongly divided along political lines. Instead, views about GM food issues connect with people\u2019s concerns about the relationship between food and health; most people are skeptical of scientists working on GM food issues and are deeply skeptical of information from food industry leaders on this issue. On the other hand, older adults, people who care more about childhood vaccine issues, and those who know more about science are, generally, more trusting of medical scientists working on childhood vaccine issues than are other people.<\/p>\n\n

It is important to keep in mind that public beliefs about science and scientists aren\u2019t necessarily indicators of trust, per se. One example involves public support for the products of scientific and technological innovation. A Pew Research Center survey found that about two-thirds of people see the effects of science on society as mostly positive, which is consistent with some 35 years of data from the General Social Survey. Looking at the components of trust in science across these three scientific areas\u2014 vaccines, climate change, and GM food\u2014 two patterns stand out. First, public trust in scientists is stronger, by comparison, than it is for several other groups in society. For example, many more people report trust in information from medical scientists, climate scientists, and GM food scientists than information from industry leaders, the news media, and elected officials. On the other hand, no more than about half of people hold strongly trusting views of scientists in any of these domains. For example, only 47% of people say that medical scientists understand the health effects of the measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine \u201cvery well.\u201d Some 43% hold soft positive views of medical understanding about the MMR vaccine, saying medical scientists understand this issue \u201cfairly well.\u201d<\/p>\n\n

The scientific enterprise is complex and so, too, is public opinion about science. The notion of trust itself has multiple dimensions. Public trust in scientists encompasses expectations about scientists\u2019 actions, trust in scientists to be honest brokers of information, trust in scientific expertise and understanding, and trust in the motivations and influences operating on science research. Viewed through that lens, levels of public trust in science are quite varied, particularly across scientific domains.<\/p>\n\n

Public confidence in scientists tends to be high compared with other groups<\/h4>\n\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n\n

Public confidence in scientists is relatively strong compared with trust in other institutional groups. Only the military earns more confidence from the public. Still, people seem guarded. No more than a third of people report a \u201cgreat deal\u201d of confidence in any of these groups to act in the public interest. Overall, more people express positive than negative confidence in scientists, but a 55% majority express only a soft confidence in scientists to act in the public interest.<\/p>\n\n

\u00a0<\/p>\n\n

Scientists are seen as trustworthy communicators of science-relevant information compared with other groups<\/h4>\n\n

\n

\"\"<\/a><\/figure>\n<\/p>\n\n

Public trust in scientists as sources of information is generally higher than it is for any of several other groups in society. For example, far more people trust medical scientists to provide full and accurate information about the health effects of childhood vaccines than they trust information from pharmaceutical industry leaders, the news media, or elected officials. The same pattern occurs for public trust in information from climate scientists and from GM food scientists.<\/p>\n\n

But only a minority of people (39%) report \u201cstrong\u201d trust in information from climate scientists. An equal share of adults say they have \u201csome\u201d trust in information from climate scientists, and about 22% are more skeptical, saying they do not trust information from climate scientists at all or not too much. The same pattern occurs for trust in information from GM food scientists.<\/p>\n\n

Medical scientists are the most trusted of the three groups. Yet here, too, some 35% of adults have only soft trust in medical scientists to give full and accurate information about the effects of the MMR vaccine.<\/p>\n\n

These findings suggest that the authority of scientists to speak on matters directly relevant to their expertise is often met with some skepticism.<\/p>\n\n

There is limited public trust in the knowledge and understanding of scientists in areas directly relevant to their expertise<\/h4>\n\n

\n

\"\"<\/a><\/figure>\n<\/p>\n\n

Minorities of people express strong trust in scientists\u2019 understanding of the causes of climate change (28%) or the health effects of eating GM foods (19%), saying that scientists understand these matters \u201cvery well.\u201d About half of people (47%) say the same about medical scientists\u2019 understanding of the health effects of the MMR vaccine.<\/p>\n\n

At least four in 10 people say that scientists understand each of these matters \u201cfairly well.\u201d A sizable share of people are skeptical of climate scientists\u2019 and GM food scientists\u2019 understanding about the causes of climate change and the health effects of GM foods, respectively, saying that scientists understand these matters \u201cnot too well\u201d or \u201cnot at all well.\u201d<\/p>\n\n

Perceptions of scientific consensus align closely with people\u2019s views of scientific understanding. From the public\u2019s perspective, there is considerable scientific disagreement about all three of these issues, particularly GM foods.<\/p>\n\n

Half or fewer of people see the best available scientific evidence as routinely influencing scientific research in these domains<\/h4>\n\n

\n

\"\"<\/a><\/figure>\n<\/p>\n\n

People hold mixed assessments about the influences operating on science research. About half of people (52%) say that the best available scientific evidence influences medical research on childhood vaccines \u201cmost of the time,\u201d while some 36% say this occurs \u201csome of the time\u201d and another 9% say this seldom or never happens. There is even less public trust in research connected with climate change and GM foods; roughly three in 10 people say the best available scientific evidence influences climate research or GM food research \u201cmost of the time.\u201d<\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

America\u2019s confidence in the scientific community appears to be relatively strong. But the degree of public trust in scientists across climate, food and medical issues varies, and many express moderate rather than strongly positive views.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":89,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"sub_headline":"","sub_title":"","_prc_public_revisions":[],"_ppp_expiration_hours":0,"_ppp_enabled":false,"ai_generated_summary":"","relatedPosts":[],"reportMaterials":[],"multiSectionReport":[],"package_parts__enabled":false,"package_parts":[],"_prc_fork_parent":0,"_prc_fork_status":"","_prc_active_fork":0,"datacite_doi":"","datacite_doi_citation":"","_prc_seo_qr_attachment_id":0,"spoken_article_player_enabled":true,"displayBylines":true,"footnotes":"","prc_watchers":[]},"categories":[165,264,105,267,364,256],"tags":[],"bylines":[939],"collection":[],"datasets":[],"level_of_effort":[],"primary_audience":[],"information_type":[],"_post_visibility":[],"formats":[458],"_fund_pool":[],"languages":[],"regions-countries":[515],"research-teams":[518],"workflow-status":[],"class_list":["post-105170","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-biotech","category-climate-energy-environment","category-health-policy","category-medicine-health","category-public-knowledge","category-trust-in-science","bylines-cary-funk","formats-report","regions-countries-united-states","research-teams-science"],"label":false,"post_parent":0,"word_count":1190,"canonical_url":"https:\/\/alpha.pewresearch.org\/pewresearch-org\/science\/2017\/12\/08\/mixed-messages-about-public-trust-in-science-2\/","art_direction":false,"_embeds":[],"watchers":[],"table_of_contents":[],"report_materials":"","report_pagination":{"current_post":null,"next_post":null,"previous_post":null,"pagination_items":[]},"parent_info":{"parent_title":"Mixed Messages about Public Trust in Science","parent_id":105170},"materialsOrdered":[],"chaptersOrdered":[],"partsOrdered":[],"partsEnabled":false,"datacite_doi":"","prc_seo_data":{"title":"Mixed Messages about Public Trust in Science","description":"America\u2019s confidence in the scientific community appears to be relatively strong. But the degree of public trust in scientists across climate, food and medical issues varies, and many express moderate rather than strongly positive views.","og_title":"Mixed Messages about Public Trust in Science","og_description":"America\u2019s confidence in the scientific community appears to be relatively strong. But the degree of public trust in scientists across climate, food and medical issues varies, and many express moderate rather than strongly positive views.","schema_type":"Article","noindex":false,"canonical_url":"","primary_terms":[],"custom_schema":[],"og_image":0,"indexnow_submitted_at":null,"gsc_index_status":null},"prepublish_checks":{"prc-image-alt-text":{"status":"incomplete","message":"1 image is missing alt text.","data":{"count":1}},"prc-about-this-research":{"status":"incomplete","message":"Add an \"About this research\" details block.","data":null},"prc-paragraph-count":{"status":"complete","message":"Found 16 paragraphs.","data":{"count":16}},"prc-internal-link":{"status":"complete","message":"Found 3 internal links.","data":{"count":3}}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"relatedPostsOrdered":[],"bylinesOrdered":[{"key":"0f4782a2718409c6c7cb45310353f13b","termId":939}],"acknowledgementsOrdered":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/alpha.pewresearch.org\/pewresearch-org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/105170","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/alpha.pewresearch.org\/pewresearch-org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/alpha.pewresearch.org\/pewresearch-org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/alpha.pewresearch.org\/pewresearch-org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/89"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/alpha.pewresearch.org\/pewresearch-org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=105170"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/alpha.pewresearch.org\/pewresearch-org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/105170\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":137641,"href":"https:\/\/alpha.pewresearch.org\/pewresearch-org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/105170\/revisions\/137641"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/alpha.pewresearch.org\/pewresearch-org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=105170"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/alpha.pewresearch.org\/pewresearch-org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=105170"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/alpha.pewresearch.org\/pewresearch-org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=105170"},{"taxonomy":"bylines","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/alpha.pewresearch.org\/pewresearch-org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/bylines?post=105170"},{"taxonomy":"collection","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/alpha.pewresearch.org\/pewresearch-org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/collection?post=105170"},{"taxonomy":"datasets","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/alpha.pewresearch.org\/pewresearch-org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/datasets?post=105170"},{"taxonomy":"level_of_effort","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/alpha.pewresearch.org\/pewresearch-org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/level_of_effort?post=105170"},{"taxonomy":"primary_audience","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/alpha.pewresearch.org\/pewresearch-org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/primary_audience?post=105170"},{"taxonomy":"information_type","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/alpha.pewresearch.org\/pewresearch-org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/information_type?post=105170"},{"taxonomy":"_post_visibility","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/alpha.pewresearch.org\/pewresearch-org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/_post_visibility?post=105170"},{"taxonomy":"formats","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/alpha.pewresearch.org\/pewresearch-org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/formats?post=105170"},{"taxonomy":"_fund_pool","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/alpha.pewresearch.org\/pewresearch-org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/_fund_pool?post=105170"},{"taxonomy":"languages","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/alpha.pewresearch.org\/pewresearch-org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/languages?post=105170"},{"taxonomy":"regions-countries","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/alpha.pewresearch.org\/pewresearch-org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/regions-countries?post=105170"},{"taxonomy":"research-teams","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/alpha.pewresearch.org\/pewresearch-org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/research-teams?post=105170"},{"taxonomy":"workflow-status","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/alpha.pewresearch.org\/pewresearch-org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/workflow-status?post=105170"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}