Trust in Science
- Open Access
- 2026
- Open Access
- Book
- Editors
- Kalypso Iordanou
- Tine Ravn
- Hub Zwart
- Publisher
- Springer Nature Switzerland
About this book
This open access book proposes that Europe has something to offer in the current landscape, namely decades of experience when it comes to addressing societal, ethical, and regulatory challenges of technoscientific change. Science is experiencing unprecedented turbulence as US government officials and Big Tech CEOs actively undermine its authority, particularly when scientific findings conflict with economic interests and power dynamics in polarized policy debates. At this time when Europe is closely monitoring what is happening "across the Pond" and struggles to position itself between giant technoscientific superpowers, researchers from three European projects joined forces to examine Science and Society's role and their interrelationship in addressing global challenges. In this Springer Brief, the authors ask core questions about Trust in Science: Are we indeed facing a trust crisis, as some sources suggest? Should science be trusted, or rather: should trust in science be promoted, and if so on what grounds? If fostering trust in science is a worthwhile and valid objective, how can it be achieved?
The authors contend that through participatory research methodologies, "European sciences" have the opportunity to strengthen their responsiveness to societal values, priorities, and concerns."
Hub Zwart (1960) studied philosophy and psychology at Radboud University Nijmegen (The Netherlands) and defended his thesis in 1993. In 2000, he became full professor of Philosophy at the Faculty of Science RU Nijmegen. In 2018, he was appointed as the dean of Erasmus School of Philosophy (Erasmus University Rotterdam). He is an editor-in-chief of the Library for Ethics and Applied Philosophy (Springer). His research develops a philosophical (dialectical) perspective on contemporary technoscience. Special attention is devoted to the dialectical relationship between science and genres of the imagination (drama, poetry, cinema, novels, music). In 2017, he published Tales of Research Misconduct (Springer Nature, open access) and in 2022 Continental Philosophy of Technoscience (Springer Nature, open access).
Advertisement
Table of Contents
-
Chapter 1. Introduction to “Trust in Science”
- Open Access
Download PDF-versionThis chapter delves into the critical topic of trust in science, highlighting its global importance and the challenges it faces. It explores the multifaceted nature of trust, encompassing psychological, normative, and relational aspects. The chapter presents insights from three European Commission-funded projects: VERITY, POIESIS, and IANUS, which examine trust in science through various lenses. It discusses the impact of public trust on science and society, the role of science communication, and the importance of participatory research. The chapter also addresses the conceptualization and measurement of trust in science, presenting qualitative findings from European countries. It concludes with policy recommendations, emphasizing the need for a comprehensive approach to understanding and promoting trust in science.AI Generated
This summary of the content was generated with the help of AI.
AbstractAmid voices to stand up for science to protect its common values in existential times for science, this introductory chapter provides an overview of the 10 chapters comprising this book. Drawing on insights from three European Commission-funded projects—VERITY, POIESIS, and IANUS—an interdisciplinary team of researchers from philosophy, psychology, ethics, data science, political science, along with different stakeholders, has collaborated to shed light on the issue of trust in science. We argue that trust in science has a complex, multifaceted, multiactor, and context-dependent nature that must be approached as such—both for studying and understanding it, and for finding ways to foster it. The chapter provides a roadmap through the book’s examination of theoretical frameworks, measurement challenges, public perceptions, institutional perspectives, and policy implications. Throughout, there is consensus on the need to develop a more nuanced understanding of trust in science and approaches for bringing science closer to society, developing a robust ecosystem of trust where, through public participation, science becomes responsive to societal priorities and citizens’ concerns. When research demonstrates such responsibility and responsiveness, a reciprocal relationship of trust emerges wherein science and society mutually reinforce each other. -
Chapter 2. The Conditions for Trust in Science, Technology and Innovation
- Open Access
Download PDF-versionThis chapter delves into the conditions for trust in science, technology, and innovation (STI), emphasizing the importance of public trust in the scientific ecosystem. It explores how trust can be gained, maintained, or lost, using case studies from climate change, genomics, and artificial intelligence (AI). The chapter highlights the role of transparency, ethical engagement, and clear communication in fostering trust. It also discusses the impact of scientific controversies, such as Climategate and the Facebook-Cambridge Analytica scandal, on public trust. The chapter concludes with practical recommendations for scientists, research funding bodies, regulators, and democratic governance processes to ensure responsible and trustworthy STI.AI Generated
This summary of the content was generated with the help of AI.
AbstractThis chapter examines three historical case studies: (1) ‘genetic modification to genome editing’; (2) ‘controversies over climate science’, and (3) ‘artificial intelligence in social media’. On this basis it develops an understanding of how public trust and confidence in science, technology, and innovation (STI) can be gained, maintained, or lost. This leads to practical recommendations for ethical and societally sustainable STI. There are both intuitive and evidenced warrants for trust in science. Intuitive warrants arise when innovation creates an immediate sense of familiarity, making the future feel like a natural continuation of the past. Evidenced warrants occur when science generates new insights or produces technologies that benefit individuals or society. However, trust in science may be undermined by scientific fraud, the dismissal of public concerns about innovations that challenge societal values, and the populist rejection of science, often accompanied by conspiracy theories. Building and maintaining public trust in STI is a multifaceted challenge that requires coordinated efforts from scientists, research institutions, funding bodies, regulators, and democratic governance processes. A commitment to transparency, proactive engagement with public concerns, risk assessment and mitigation, responsible communication, and strong regulatory frameworks is essential for navigating the complexities of technological advancement and ensuring public trust. -
Chapter 3. Science Communication as a Trust Repair Mechanism
- Open Access
Download PDF-versionThis chapter delves into the role of Science Communication (SciComm) as a mechanism to foster public trust in science. It explores the various objectives of SciComm, with a particular focus on the 'trust objective'—the aim to promote or restore trust in science. The chapter argues that this objective is problematic and can be detrimental to the trustworthiness of both SciComm and science. It highlights three main issues with the trust objective: it legitimizes a trust deficit, it indiscriminately promotes trust, and it can be perceived as a persuasive or promotional motive. The chapter also discusses the implications of these issues for SciComm practices and calls for more reflective and ethical approaches. It concludes that SciComm should not strive to promote trust deliberately but should allow trust to emerge as a byproduct of other aims or experienced benefits. The chapter also emphasizes the importance of genuine dialogue in SciComm and the need for an ethical framework to guide trust-fostering efforts responsibly.AI Generated
This summary of the content was generated with the help of AI.
AbstractScience Communication (SciComm) refers to the many ways that science and scientific issues are shared or discussed outside of academic settings. Both reviews of SciComm literature and accounts of the field’s historical development indicate that promoting or restoring public trust in science is an undisputed and ubiquitous objective for SciComm. We term this the “trust objective” of SciComm and note that SciComm is regularly advocated as an institutional trust repair mechanism, i.e. as an effective response to public trust issues. In this chapter, we take a critical look into the proposition that SciComm should strive to promote or repair trust in science. Three problematic aspects are identified and discussed. First, a trust objective legitimizes a trust deficit; yet a rhetoric of public deficits may deprive the scientific community of valuable opportunities for reflection and mutual learning. Second, a trust objective indiscriminately promotes trust; it assumes that “more” trust is better and overlooks differences between warranted trust, excessive trust, healthy skepticism or distrust. Lastly, a trust objective can be interpreted as a persuasive or promotional motive; while such motives are not inherently negative, they must be recognised and addressed if they are to be pursued ethically. Our analysis suggests a need for more contextual approaches that clarify the exact trust problem at hand and a need for continuous reflection by the scientific and SciComm community over their assumptions, motives, and desired outcomes. -
Chapter 4. Trust in Science Fostered by Mutual Learning Across Forms of Knowledge
- Open Access
Download PDF-versionThis chapter explores the complex dynamics of trust in science, emphasizing the importance of mutual learning and participatory research to bridge the gap between academic knowledge and societal concerns. It delves into the historical context of misinformation, highlighting that scepticism and distrust in science are not new phenomena but have evolved alongside societal changes. The text argues that trust in science can be fostered by actively engaging with public scepticism and incorporating multiple forms of knowledge, including practical and lifeworld experiences. It also discusses the role of participatory research in making scientific insights more relevant and valid, and the need for scientists to consider the broader societal implications of their work. The chapter concludes that trust in science can be strengthened through epistemic inclusion, which involves incorporating various forms of knowledge and engaging with different voices and perspectives to discern blind spots and preconceptions. Additionally, it touches on the political dimensions of trust in science, highlighting the divide between academic and practical knowledge and the need for novel research methodologies that incorporate social interaction as a crucial component of the knowledge production process.AI Generated
This summary of the content was generated with the help of AI.
AbstractTrust in science is never a given. In fact, skepticism is an integral part of the scientific method. In this chapter we argue that trust in science can be fostered through participatory research, making research more inclusive, transparent and responsive to societal values, questions and concerns, lowering barriers between academic and societal knowledge, and using societal concerns and skepticism as a source of inspiration and information. This is not an easy approach, as we are facing emerging challenges: societal polarisation (often in response to disruptive technologies), growing inequalities and the replacement of a common public sphere by communicative bubbles and social media. Yet, to the extent that participatory approaches work, they may enable societal stakeholders to distinguish valid from unsubstantiated trust, healthy from unfounded distrust, while enabling researchers to conduct relevant, engaged and value-driven research, opening up to multiple perspectives while foregoing partiality and ideological biases. In short, we aim to foster trust in science though epistemic inclusion. This requires intense collaboration between science, technology and technoscience on the one hand and social sciences and humanities on the other. We will zoom in on recent developments in biomedical fields, using experiences from virology during the COVID-19 crisis as our case study. Rather than seeing societal engagement and interaction as the final stage of a research trajectory, research must build on mutual learning, involving societal dialogue as part of the “empirical cycle” and as an intrinsic component of participatory research methodologies. -
Chapter 5. Measuring Trust in Science Through Surveys: Challenges and Reflections
- Open Access
Download PDF-versionThis chapter delves into the intricacies of measuring trust in science through surveys, addressing the challenges and reflections that arise from this process. It begins by highlighting the conceptual complexity of trust in science and the fragmentation of measurement approaches, emphasizing the need for careful interpretation of survey results. The chapter then explores the challenges associated with the validity of trust measures, discussing the varying operationalisations of trust and the 'jingle-jangle jungle' problem. It also underscores the importance of question wording, demonstrating how semantics and pragmatics can influence survey results. A paradigm-syntagma of survey items on trust in science is introduced to help analyze and interpret survey data more effectively. The chapter concludes with an empirical examination of nuanced (dis)trust dynamics in seven European countries, based on Eurobarometer data. This analysis illustrates how interpretations of survey results shape our understanding of public (dis)trust in science and emphasizes the need for careful, context-aware interpretations and the value of enriching survey data with complementary qualitative insights.AI Generated
This summary of the content was generated with the help of AI.
AbstractPublic trust in science plays a crucial role in shaping science-society relations. Surveys are widely used to measure such trust, yet the operationalisation and interpretations of corresponding items present significant challenges. This chapter explores the complexities of measuring trust in science through surveys and the implications for interpreting public attitudes across different contexts. First, it examines the challenges of operationalising the multi-dimensional concept of trust in science in form of survey items. Second, it unpacks the role of question wording, demonstrating how semantics and pragmatics influence survey responses. A paradigm-syntagma framework is introduced to systematically categorise trust-related survey items. Third, the chapter uses an empirical analysis of Eurobarometer data to illustrate the complexity of interpreting survey items on trust in science. The findings underscore the risks of oversimplified rankings and comparisons and advocate for a more context-sensitive approach to survey interpretation. -
Chapter 6. A General Public’s Perspective: Factors that Constrain Individual Trust in Science
- Open Access
Download PDF-versionThis chapter examines the factors that constrain individual trust in science, focusing on the perspectives of the general public across different European countries. The study identifies three main themes that influence trust in science: individual factors, such as motivation, cognition, and affect; socio-cultural factors, including social norms, social influence, and conflicts within science or other groups; and environmental factors, such as educational systems, online information environments, and access to science and scientists. The findings suggest that trust in science is affected by a complex interplay of these factors, and that trust relationships can vary depending on whether they are individual-oriented, group-oriented, or institution-oriented. The chapter concludes by discussing the implications of these findings for enhancing trust in science and the need for inclusive dialogue and diverse stakeholder engagement.AI Generated
This summary of the content was generated with the help of AI.
AbstractThis chapter explores factors that may constrain individual trust in science examined across a general, non-expert, public from a set of European contexts. The work is grounded in a rich qualitative dataset comprised of eight focus groups and one individual interview, conducted in Austria, Cyprus, Greece, Ireland and France in the context of the VERITY project. The data were analyzed inductively using thematic analysis, and themes were identified and compared in iterative cycles. The chapter focuses on three themes that were identified in the data: (1) individual factors, including affect, competencies, as well as motivational and cognitive attributes; (2) socio-cultural factors, including social norms, social influence and the role that conflicts across different contexts play in hindering individual trust; (3) environmental factors, including the country-level educational system and online information environments. The findings suggest how different mechanisms can shape individual trust in scientists and science, as an institution. -
Chapter 7. Public Trust in Science: A Public Consultation on a European Scale
- Open Access
Download PDF-versionThis chapter delves into the complex issue of public trust in science, highlighting its renewed importance in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. Through a series of public deliberative workshops across seven European countries, the study explores how research integrity, public engagement, and science communication influence trust in science. Participants generally expressed high levels of trust in science, appreciating its role in progress and improvement of lives. However, concerns were raised about misconduct, conflicts of interest, and political influence, which were seen as threats to trust. The study also examined the role of public engagement in science, with participants valuing transparency and involvement but expressing varying opinions on the extent of public participation. Science communication emerged as a critical factor, with trustworthiness linked to the credibility of sources and the clarity of messages. The findings challenge existing assumptions about public participation and the role of science communication, emphasizing the need for responsible research conduct and effective communication strategies to build and maintain public trust in science.AI Generated
This summary of the content was generated with the help of AI.
AbstractPublic trust in science has long attracted the attention of scholars. With empirical studies consistently showing that public trust in science remains moderately stable and high on a global scale, there is still limited understanding of the factors that influence trust. As part of the POIESIS project, this study aimed to explore public’s perceptions about three main issues that are believed to influence trust in science: research integrity, public engagement and science communication. Through a qualitative methodology based on Public Deliberative Workshops (PDWs), we involved 169 members of the public across seven European countries—Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Portugal, Spain, and the United Kingdom—in discussions about these topics. Participants expressed overall positive attitudes towards science. Isolated cases of misconduct were unlikely to directly affect public trust, yet integrity values in science are seen as key to trust. Additionally, public engagement was seen as a democratic access to science, still concerns were shown about the desired levels of engagement. Regarding communication, the credibility of the sources of information and actors were often mentioned as components for trust. The findings highlight the importance for institutions and individual scientists to align with integrity values, and provide valuable insights for institutions, policymakers, and science communicators seeking to foster greater confidence in science. This chapter provides a glance of the main findings of the PDWs described in Entradas et al. (2023). -
Chapter 8. The Role of Institutions in Cultivating Trust in Science: A Qualitative Approach on a European Scale
- Open Access
Download PDF-versionThis chapter examines the role of institutions in fostering trust in science, focusing on the perceptions of institutional stakeholders across seven European countries. It explores how these stakeholders view public trust in science and technology, research integrity, and citizen participation. The study reveals that while there is no widespread crisis of trust in science, there are specific areas and contexts that may lead to mistrust. The chapter also highlights the importance of transparency, scientific literacy, and coordinated efforts to bridge the gap between science and society. Additionally, it discusses the role of institutions in promoting research integrity and citizen participation, emphasizing the need for standardization and harmonization of research integrity standards and policies at the European or global level. The findings suggest that involving citizens and civil society in co-creating research agendas and content can make research more relevant, but this depends on a long list of resources and factors that do not always align. The chapter concludes by emphasizing the crucial role of institutions in promoting research integrity and citizen participation, and the need for coordinated efforts at both national and European levels.AI Generated
This summary of the content was generated with the help of AI.
AbstractHow do institutional actors perceive public trust in science and technology within their national contexts? How do institutional stakeholders view the cultures of research integrity and social integration, and how do they perceive such cultures to co-influence public trust in science? This chapter explores the role of institutions in fostering a research culture that reinforces trust in science. Based on the findings of a qualitative, participatory study carried out in 7 partner countries, it highlights key insights into institutional perspectives. Across countries, results indicate that professional stakeholders do not identify a general ‘crisis of trust’ in science but, nonetheless, variously raise emerging areas of concern and identify internal and external pressures on the science system that may negatively influence public trust in science and public perceptions of science and technology. -
Chapter 9. A Multi-Stakeholder View on Methods to Foster Public Trust in Science
- Open Access
Download PDF-versionThis chapter delves into the methods to foster public trust in science, addressing the growing disconnect between science and society. Through multi-stakeholder focus groups in Austria, Belgium, and Greece, the study explores practical solutions to enhance trust, categorized by their main objectives: raising interest in science, enhancing understanding of science, promoting scientific integrity, democratizing science, and building a reflexive mindset. The findings highlight the importance of visual representations, clear communication, and the role of various stakeholders in science communication. The chapter also discusses the challenges and opportunities in using social media and the need for education and training to combat misinformation. The conclusion emphasizes the importance of audience segmentation and tailoring methods to specific target groups for effective science communication.AI Generated
This summary of the content was generated with the help of AI.
AbstractThis chapter explores methods identified as having the greatest potential to address societal mistrust in science in practice. Five categories are given, divided by their main objective, namely methods to raise interest in science, to enhance understanding on how science functions, to promote the integrity of scientists and scientific institutions, to democratise science, and to build up a reflexive mindset and resilience against misinformation. Our findings emphasize the need for a multi-level and multi-dimensional perspective in all relevant stages of method design and implementation. We start from the premise that different trust issues pertain to target groups and scientific topics. These issues cannot be tackled without the proper insight into the underlying political and economic context in which mistrust in science evolved. The key prerequisite of a successful method is therefore a precise identification of the inherent socio-economic or political issues, which can be better addressed through a sustained engagement of relevant local stakeholders. Our results are primarily based on three multi-stakeholder focus group discussions in Austria, Belgium and Greece. These debates brought together a broad range of stakeholders responsible for guiding societal trust in science, i.e., researchers, science communicators, journalists, policymakers and industry actors. Our aim was to enhance understanding of their interlinked roles in fostering trust in science. Qualitative content analysis had been used to identify key themes that were translated into the presented methods. -
Chapter 10. Ecosystem of Trust: A Systems Approach to Trust in Science
- Open Access
Download PDF-versionThis chapter delves into the intricate world of trust in science, presenting a novel systems approach to understand its multifaceted nature. It introduces the concept of an 'ecosystem of trust in science,' which emphasizes the interconnected elements influencing trust and provides a framework for understanding its dynamics. The text explores the challenges and evolution of trust in science, highlighting the impact of globalization, technological advancements, and the shifting landscape of scientific research. It also examines the roles of various stakeholders, known as Stewards of Trust, and their interconnections within the ecosystem. The chapter concludes by discussing the limitations of the systems approach and advocating for the shared responsibility of the scientific community in nurturing trust in science. Readers will gain insights into the complex dynamics of trust in science, the roles of different actors, and the importance of a systems perspective in understanding and governing trust in scientific endeavors.AI Generated
This summary of the content was generated with the help of AI.
AbstractThis chapter uses a systems thinking approach to conceptualise the Ecosystem of Trust in Science as a dynamic and evolving system shaped by changing research and innovation environments. Contemporary science is increasingly internationalised, oriented toward addressing grand societal challenges, and driven by rapid technological advances. As a result, the Ecosystem of Trust has expanded beyond individual researchers to include a diverse and distributed set of actors. The chapter maps Stewards of Trust and key stakeholders within this ecosystem, taking into account diversity within both Stewards of Trust and the publics whose trust is at stake. While existing research has examined mediators of trust between science and society, it has largely overlooked the relational and systemic dynamics through which trust is constructed, negotiated, enhanced or reduced. This chapter addresses this gap by providing a framework that captures interdependencies among Stewards of Trust within a complex and evolving Ecosystem of Trust. -
Chapter 11. Philosophical Insights into Trust in Science: Towards Better Surveys and Policy Design
- Open Access
Download PDF-versionThis chapter delves into the philosophical nuances of trust in science, emphasizing the importance of distinguishing between trust and warranted trust. It explores the historical shifts in science-society relations and the evolution of public surveys on science, highlighting the need for more rigorous conceptual analysis. The article maps out the philosophical aspects of trust, including the nature of trust, trustworthiness, and the complexity of trust relationships. It also discusses the challenges to public trust in science, such as misinformation and politicization, and proposes strategies for building and sustaining trust. The chapter concludes with actionable recommendations for enhancing empirical studies on trust in science, integrating philosophical insights with practical methodologies to foster warranted trust and align it with public values and expectations.AI Generated
This summary of the content was generated with the help of AI.
AbstractPublic trust in science has become a central concern for policymakers, who often interpret its perceived decline as a crisis of trust. In response, efforts to rebuild trust emphasise various strategies, including strengthening research ethics and integrity, promoting participatory approaches, and enhancing science communication. When developing policy measures, empirical surveys should help identify the reasons for distrust. However, current studies fall short of this objective. Most surveys on public trust in science, such as special Eurobarometers and national science barometers, reveal trust levels but fail to clarify respondents’ interpretations of trust and science or assess whether their trust or distrust is justified. Effective strategies require a complex understanding of the mechanisms of trust and distrust. Drawing on a conceptual analysis of trust, the chapter provides a framework for implementing a more nuanced understanding of its multidimensional nature encompassing two-place, and three-place trust, as well as the interplay between the trustor, trustee, and broader societal factors. By integrating these insights, the chapter outlines how better-targeted empirical studies can inform more effective, context-sensitive policy recommendations for promoting public trust in science.
- Title
- Trust in Science
- Editors
-
Kalypso Iordanou
Tine Ravn
Hub Zwart
- Copyright Year
- 2026
- Publisher
- Springer Nature Switzerland
- Electronic ISBN
- 978-3-032-15723-2
- Print ISBN
- 978-3-032-15722-5
- DOI
- https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-032-15723-2
PDF files of this book have been created in accordance with the PDF/UA-1 standard to enhance accessibility, including screen reader support, described non-text content (images, graphs), bookmarks for easy navigation, keyboard-friendly links and forms and searchable, selectable text. We recognize the importance of accessibility, and we welcome queries about accessibility for any of our products. If you have a question or an access need, please get in touch with us at accessibilitysupport@springernature.com.
