What a difference a pandemic makes.
In April 2020, 12% of Americans had little to no trust in science or scientists.
According to a new Pew Research report, that number is now 27%.
Just over three years ago, 39% of Americans expressed a high level of trust in science.
Now, it’s 23%.
The belief that science has a positive impact on society also dropped, from 65% in a November 2021 poll to 57% today. The percentage of adults that thinks science is a mixed bag in terms of its societal impact is 34%.
While nearly three-quarters of Americans have a fair amount of confidence in scientists, the numbers are dropping across the board.
When it comes to the standing of scientists, 73% of U.S. adults have a great deal or fair amount of confidence in scientists to act in the public’s best interests. But trust in scientists is 14 points lower than it was during the early stages of the pandemic.
This downward trend is most stark among Republicans. While this was true even in early 2019, Republicans with little to no trust in science has increased from 18% to 38%, while for Democrats it’s gone from 9% to 13%.
A bifurcated media system is in large part to blame for these numbers. We no longer listen to a range of opinions in shared media spaces; rather, we have completely separate networks and ecosystems. While misinformation flows through all of them, the anti-science movement has largely been the product of Republican and Libertarian media spaces.
The reflex has often been to snap back with the claim that science communications have been awful. In some cases, that’s true. But it’s hard not to identify an underlying ignorance of the scientific process as well.
For example, one common reaction is that “they” lied about Covid-19, pointing to the notion that vaccines would stop the transmission of the virus. And this was briefly a talking point, which a number of media outlets reported on. A few weeks later, when more data was in, this viewpoint was clarified and corrected—which is how science works.
We can assign some blame to agencies and journalists who rushed this narrative without enough proof. That’s a legitimate critique. But to claim researchers were lying is unfair. Science begins with a hypothesis that requires verification and rigorous examination before coming to conclusions. Sadly, our media networks are designed for instant gratification. Officials in the Trump administration played that game.
To criticize the process is warranted. To claim nefarious intent is another story.
Even after all of this, trust in science and the scientific process is higher than other professions. Here’s the percentage of American adults with little to no trust in:
Medical scientists: 22%
The military: 26%
Scientists: 27%
Police officers: 31%
Public school principals: 34%
Religious leaders: 46%
Journalists: 58%
Business leaders: 64%
Elected officials: 75%
Not looking good in Silicon Valley or Washington DC—or for the media. Now here’s the percentage of US adults with a great deal of confidence in:
The military: 26%
Medical scientists: 25%
Scientists: 23%
Police officers: 19%
Public school principals: 14%
Religious leaders: 11%
Journalists: 6%
Business leaders: 3%
Elected officials: 2%
We’re witnessing the negative effects of this lack of trust on a daily basis. Just this week, a senator almost fought a teamster in Congress (then showed off his gun collection a few hours later), a representative was elbowed by another, and another representative created a “ghost bus” conspiracy theory about what really happened on January 6.
There’s a lot to unpack in this recent Pew report, and it’s hard to imagine those numbers sliding any further. Yet anything is possible.
In regards to trust in science, John C. Besley from Michigan State University, who studies public attitudes toward science, offers a potential pathway forward:
The scientific community needs to work together to communicate in ways that give more people a reason to trust scientists. That means making sure scientists are visibly listening to a wide range of voices, doing work that benefits everyone, and protecting the integrity of their work.
A nice high-level idea. On the ground, the work is going to be a lot harder.
Keep reading with a 7-day free trial
Subscribe to re:frame to keep reading this post and get 7 days of free access to the full post archives.