faz.net
Global Trust in Science Remains High Despite Variations
A global survey of 71,922 people shows that trust in science remains high across countries, averaging above "three" on a five-point scale, despite political and social variations; however, experts caution that undifferentiated trust isn't ideal.
- What is the global level of public trust in science, and what are the immediate implications of this finding?
- A global survey of 71,922 people across various countries revealed that trust in scientists remains high, with average scores above "three" on a five-point scale even in countries with science-skeptical leaders or autocratic governments. Three-quarters of respondents agreed that scientific methods are the best way to find truth.
- How do socio-cultural factors and political climates affect levels of trust in science across different countries?
- While trust in science is generally high globally, the study notes variations based on social, cultural, and historical factors, influencing how people perceive scientists' competence, intentions, integrity, and openness. Higher trust was observed among women, older individuals, those with higher education and income, and city dwellers.
- What are the potential long-term consequences of both high and low levels of trust in science, and how can these be addressed to optimize public understanding and engagement with scientific information?
- The study highlights that high trust in science isn't inherently positive; nuanced, informed, and reflective trust is preferable. This suggests a need for improved science communication and critical evaluation of scientific findings to foster a more informed and discerning public trust in science.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The framing emphasizes the lack of a general crisis of trust in science, highlighting the high global average trust score and emphasizing expert opinions that support this view. While acknowledging some skepticism, the article's structure prioritizes the overall high level of trust, potentially downplaying the significance of existing skepticism in specific contexts or groups.
Bias by Omission
The article focuses primarily on the global and German context, potentially omitting regional variations in trust towards scientists. While acknowledging limitations in the study, the analysis doesn't explicitly discuss what specific regions or demographics showed higher or lower levels of trust beyond broad strokes like urban vs. rural populations or political leanings. This omission could limit a complete understanding of the nuanced perspectives on scientific trustworthiness across different cultures and societies.
Gender Bias
The article mentions that women tend to show more trust in scientists, but doesn't delve into gendered language or representation in the study itself or its reporting. More detailed analysis of how gender might be reflected in the research methodology or its interpretation would be beneficial.
Sustainable Development Goals
The article highlights that trust in scientists remains high globally, even amidst challenges like science skepticism in certain political contexts. This indirectly supports Quality Education by showing that scientific literacy and understanding are relatively widespread, underpinning the importance of continued science education and communication.