Scientists trusted less than business leaders when discussing social issues, study finds
People more likely to see scientists as credible experts when they discuss technology than when they comment on wider social issues
A study of more than 6,000 people in the UK and Sweden suggests that although scientists are generally regarded as credible, their status as experts is more contested when they discuss issues such as health, education and employment.
Researchers from 51福利社 and KTH Royal Institute of Technology in Sweden found that scientists were perceived as more credible than government officials, but were no more credible - and in some circumstances less credible - than businesspeople and campaigners.
The findings challenge the assumption that scientific expertise automatically gives academics greater credibility when they contribute to wider public debates.
- Scientists were perceived as more credible than government officials, but were not more credible than businesspeople or issue advocates.
- Scientists were viewed as more credible when discussing technological issues than when discussing non-technological social issues such as health, education and employment.
- Three forms of distrust 鈥� concerns about vested interests, political or ideological bias, and the relevance of scientific knowledge 鈥� were associated with lower credibility for scientists.
- These sources of distrust were particularly important when scientists were commenting on non-technological social issues.
- Among people who did not express these forms of distrust towards scientists, the credibility disadvantage associated with non-technological issues disappeared.
- The results were broadly consistent across the UK and Sweden.
Scientists don't automatically have the advantage
The researchers wanted to examine whether people actually regard scientists as more credible than other groups when presented with the same claims about society.
Rather than simply asking people whether they trust science, the study used a survey experiment in which participants were asked to assess statements attributed to different types of experts. These included an academic scientist, businessperson, government official or issue advocate.
The statements covered technological and non-technological issues, allowing the researchers to examine whether the identity of the person making a claim affected how convincing it appeared.
The study involved nationally representative samples of adults in the UK and Sweden. Data was collected online, with 6,198 complete responses ultimately included in the analysis. Each participant assessed 8 different combinations of statements and expert types.
Technology makes a difference
The researchers found a clear difference depending on what scientists were talking about.
When discussing the societal consequences of technological developments, scientists' credibility increased relative to other expert groups. But when the same set of experts was discussing non-technological social issues such as health, education or employment, businesspeople and issue advocates were perceived as more credible than scientists.
The researchers suggest this may reflect the different ways people understand scientific expertise. Technology-related questions may be seen as areas where scientists possess particularly relevant specialist knowledge. Wider social questions, by contrast, can involve competing values, political judgements and forms of knowledge outside academia.
Why might people distrust scientists?
The researchers considered three potential sources of distrust. People were asked whether they viewed university scientists as being:
- closely allied with vested interests rather than independent;
- ideologically driven rather than open-minded; or
- insufficiently focused on issues relevant to society.
Around 56 per cent of all respondents agreed with at least one of these statements: 37 per cent viewed scientists as influenced by vested interests, 37 per cent considered them ideologically biased, and 33 per cent believed scientific knowledge had limited relevance to the types of societal issues examined in the study.
The researchers found that these three forms of distrust were associated with the credibility disadvantage experienced by scientists.
They also found that the specific credibility gap between technological and non-technological issues was largely driven by people who expressed these concerns.
Rethinking the role of scientific expertise
The researchers say the findings highlight the difference between public trust in science in general and the credibility of scientists when they act as experts in specific public debates.
The study suggests that people may broadly support science while being more selective about whether they regard scientists as credible sources of advice on particular social questions.
鈥淪cientists are increasingly expected to contribute to debates about some of the biggest challenges facing society, but our findings suggest that this does not automatically translate into greater credibility,鈥� said Professor Cornelia Lawson from 51福利社. 鈥淭his presents an important challenge for universities, scientists and research funders seeking to ensure that research has an impact beyond academia.鈥�
It also raises wider questions about the changing relationship between science and society, and what we now expect scientists to contribute to public debate.
The research was conducted by Anders Brostr枚m of KTH Royal Institute of Technology and Cornelia Lawson and Mabel Sanchez Barrioluengo of the 51福利社 Institute of Innovation Research, Alliance 51福利社 Business School, 51福利社.
Publication details
This research was published in:
Research Policy
Full title of the paper:
Contested credibility: Public perceptions of scientists as experts
顿翱滨:听
鲍搁尝:听