Is it time to wave the white flag and give up on society’s trust of science?
Trust in science is eroding and the traditional scientific response - gathering more evidence is not working.
The results of this survey by the Pew Research Center are concerning.
It’s a growing trend where beliefs are given primacy.
Instead of evidence to challenge beliefs, they make beliefs primary and seek evidence to support them.
Science is the opposite.
It makes evidence primary and looks for the evidence that is incompatible with prevailing beliefs.
This is how progress is made because the truth and reality is elevated to the foremost position.
The Evidence Trap
Scientists' instinct when faced with public skepticism is to gather more evidence.
But this approach misses a fundamental disconnect: while science thrives on uncertainty and unexpected findings, the public craves certainty and practical applications.
You may believe that all swans are white until you see a black swan. Then you know that your hypothesis that all swans are white is not true. Your hypothesis is rejected.
The black swan was an unexpected finding.
Science latches on to unexpected findings, pursues knowledge such as understanding why there are black swans.
However, that pursuit of knowledge for the sake of knowledge does not always resonate with the public at large.
What people want from science
They want knowledge they can use.
They want knowledge that can help.
This is doubly true when public money is funding research.
This difference in perspective threatens to degrade trust in science.
Their view on the effect of science on society is also starting to dim.
Is it even possible to increase the trust in science?
This is a question that is not easy to answer. The bread and butter response is gather more evidence.
Create a larger study?
Point to the wealth of existing evidence?
Yet science thrives on uncertainty. We live for the unexpected finding.
For a public that is seeking certainty, this is perplexing.
How often do we hear the argument that herbs and healing practices that have been used for 1,000's of years?
For myself, I don't want the type of medicine that was practiced 1,000 years ago. For those seeking more certainty, 1,000 years of experience is reassuring.
Focusing on the evidence as a way to build trust is a trap. The fundamental uncertainty which is at the core of science is an open door for finding contrary evidence.
Now more than ever, information is readily at our finger tips. It is easy to find evidence that will support almost any belief.
I am not saying we should abandon the gathering of more evidence. I am saying that we need to do something more than gather more evidence to build trust.
Beyond Evidence: A New Approach to Trust
The obvious answer is to make stakeholders true partners in the research. This would clearly work to get the public to understand what science really is about.
When the Aspen Institute’s Science and Society Program brought stakeholders together to discuss tactics for increasing trust in science, they concluded that the key is building relationships between experts and those looking to the experts (1).
But this is a slow strategy.
We also still very much risk that the perspectives remain misaligned. It is difficult for non-scientists to comprehend the slow pace of research.
They expect that in a 5-year project and a 200K investment there will be a new therapy for a disease. The reality is it more like 17 years and 2bn in investment.
It is, however, important to listen to what people care about and why they think science is irrelevant.
In that sentiment, there is a clue.
How can we make science more relevant?
By building bridges.
No. This is not going to be a diatribe about how we need to have more translational research.
It is about making science more relevant.
The bridge I am talking about is the bridge between research outputs and impact. Showing a clear pathway to impact can increase the perceived value of your research.
Impact is often demoted to being sort of an afterthought, or just something to do to please the politicians who ultimately fund research and don't really understand science.
Such a mindset about impact will not build trust. It will not lead to a deeper embrace of science. To the contrary, it will destroy trust.
The Public Expects Scientists to Bridge Research and Reality
The public expects scientists to lead on the implementation or innovation, in other words, going from research findings to reality.
In the Edelman Trust Barometer for 2024, it’s clear that implementing innovation, making real and achieving an impact in the public’s mind is the job of scientists.
This makes sense.
Who will know how to adapt when problems arise? Who will know what research can do to keep a field moving forward?
It would be nice if what we do as scientists is make some discoveries, publish papers and then hope that others pick that up and run with it.
We can debate this point on its practical merits, but the point here is to find a way to build trust.
By stopping at publication, we leave the whole scientific endeavor at risk because it looks selfish.
It looks like all we want as researchers is the metric of more papers, higher impact papers.
Do you trust people who are focused only on their own metrics?
Why isn’t impact part of the scientific method?
You need something to focus your research efforts. Shouldn’t that something be the impact you intend to have?
Even if it is 10-15 years down the road and there many contributors to that impact, we can still frame our research in terms of impact.
There has to be a reason you are doing the research you are doing; maybe it's curing cancer or improving the lives of people with Crohn's disease.
These kinds of impacts are great but they are too far in the future, making it difficult to bridge the link.
A major disconnect also happens when you say, in this circumstance, I am hoping to find a cure for cancer.
We need to get more fine-grained on the impact we hope to have.
This does not mean abandoning basic or fundamental research.
It does, however, mean you should link basic research to impact by showing a pathway to impact and defining what the impact is.
A new way of thinking about the scientific method would then be:
What impact do I want to have?
What are the outcomes to get to that impact?
What are the problems preventing those outcomes?
Observation
Hypothesis
Experimentation
Refine hypothesis
Test again
The pathway to impact is the frame in which the traditional scientific method happens.
Framing science with impact pathways is how we can build trust.
Trust is about having realistic expectations. It does no good when patients expect a project or a single study to be the direct path to a new therapy and then 10 years later there remains no new therapy.
A constellation of impact: 10 million scientists lighting the way
If we do a Fermat estimation, picking the most logical order of magnitude that makes sense, we know that there are probably more than 1 million scientists in the world, but probably not 100 million.
So, we can assume there are 10 million scientists.
George H. W. Bush, the first Bush president, was at times for his 1,000 points of light metaphor that he used to describe the importance of service.
He started the Points of Light foundation (2) which now has more than 4 million volunteers across 38 countries.
What if we could create 10 million points of light for science?
If 10 million scientists effectively communicate their pathway to impact, the sheer magnitude of potential advancement it will build trust.
To turn on your light, the best thing you could do is become clear about the impact you intend to have.
This is about going beyond your why.
It’s about communicating your pathway to impact in such a way that people receive the message and they get inspired.
The most effective method of human communication
The best way to communicate is to tell a story.
To be one of those 10 million points of life, you should develop your impact story.
Stories follow distinct patterns such as:
There is a problem or a challenge.
It gets worse.
It becomes urgent to do something now.
Often someone, in this case you, tried something and it did not work or it was not fast enough.
What is possible?
What is needed to change the situation?
Now you are trying something different.
This will have a particular effect (outcome) that outcome will lead to another outcome and then the impact.
The future will look different.
The problem will no longer be a problem.
Here is an example impact story. It is generic but I created based upon my experience in creating pathways to impact consortium project.
What if your life—or your child’s life—was a cycle of relentless, searing pain? Imagine spending countless days in and out of the hospital, battling to find even a moment of energy or relief.
Now, imagine there’s a treatment—but it’s unreliable, grueling to endure, and doesn’t offer the hope of a full recovery. Would you accept that as the best possible future?
I can’t. I believe in a future where no one has to live this way—a future where this disease is stopped in its tracks before it can wreak havoc.
To make this vision a reality, we need to act early. That means detecting this disease before symptoms appear, using reliable tests to find those at risk. And it means generating the evidence to prove that treating early can prevent suffering.
At my lab, we’re on a mission to understand the biology behind this disease—because when we know how it begins and progresses, we can find the right people at the right time and disrupt the disease process before it ever takes hold. Together, we can create a world where this disease no longer dictates lives.
Lighting the way
To ensure continued trust in science, we need to endeavor to turn on 10 million points of light.
Not by just generating more evidence, more than ever we need to embed science in impact.
We need to tell impact stories.
Impact is where scientists and their stakeholders can meet.
It is where a common understanding can grow.
Trust needs to be nurtured through the expectation that research is of value.
That can be done by linking research outputs to impact even if the impact is long term.
Add your point of light
Science needs your story.
As one of the potential 10 million points of light, you have a unique story to tell about how your work can change the world.
But crafting that story—one that bridges the gap between research and impact—isn't always intuitive.
That's why I've created "Science Impact Story" a free email course launching in January 2025. Over five days, you'll learn:
How to map your research to meaningful outcomes and impact
Techniques for crafting compelling impact narratives
Methods to connect with stakeholders through story
Steps to build your own impact story
Ready to help rebuild trust in science?
References
How to Rebuild Trust In Science, Cary Funk, Ph.D. & Jylana L. Sheats, Ph.D., MPH The Aspen Institute Blog