Send us a link
The 2022 High Level Workshop on the European Research Area focused on ethics and integrity when science engages with the public, such as when advising decision makers, communicating to citizens, or having the public participate in the research process.
The COVID-19 pandemic prompted many discussions about how people's trust in science shaped our ability to address the crisis. Early in the pandemic, our research team set out to understand how trust in science relates to support for public health guidelines, and to identify some trusted sources of science. In this essay, we share our findings and offer ideas about what might be done to strengthen the public's trust in science. Notably, our research shows a stark partisan divide: Republicans had lower support for public health guidelines, and their trust in science and institutions such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Institutes of Health eroded over time. Meanwhile, Democrats' trust in science has remained high throughout the pandemic. In the context of this divide, we explore how trust in various information sources, from governmental institutions to the media, relates to trust in science, and suggest that the best avenue for rebuilding trust might be through empowering local institutions and leaders to help manage future crises.
Empirical data do not support the conclusion of a crisis of public trust in science. They do support the conclusion of a crisis of conservative trust in science: polls show that American attitudes toward science are highly polarized along political lines. In this essay, we argue that conservative hostility toward science is rooted in conservative hostility toward government regulation of the marketplace, which has morphed in recent decades into conservative hostility to government, tout court. This distrust was cultivated by conservative business leaders for nearly a century, but took strong hold during the Reagan administration, largely in response to scientific evidence of environmental crises that invited governmental response. Thus, science-particularly environmental and public health science-became the target of conservative anti-regulatory attitudes. We argue that contemporary distrust of science is mostly collateral damage, a spillover from carefully orchestrated conservative distrust of government.
Interventions designed to improve agricultural practices often lack a solid evidence base. A new initiative could change that.
"The Next 75 Years of Science Policy," a collection of essays presents a wide range of visions for how science might serve society in the coming years.
Large-scale projects in fundamental science, such as major particle colliders, radio telescopes, synchrotron light sources are promoted by scientific communities in the first place, mainly funded by governments, and ultimately by taxpayers. Little is known, however, about preferences of the latter except in the form of qualitative social attitudes survey.
Science, technology and innovation research is not focused on the most pressing problems: taking climate action, addressing complex underlying social issues, tackling hunger and promoting good health and wellbeing.
When programmes expand, new complexities and indirect consequences must be studied.
Climate change affects us all yet not equally. The plight of those forced to migrate as a result - often called 'climate refugees', though not officially - has become contested ground between human rights/environmental activists and anti-asylum lobbyists. Could 'ecologically displaced', avoiding racialization, xenophobia and division, be a viable alternative?
Postmodern ideas have gained the status of absolute truths. Relativism, selectively appropriated into the language of both left and right politics, has metamorphosed into dogma. As oversimplification distorts communication, public trust in scientific fact has eroded. Could renewed ideas of objectivity be a way out?
The challenge of demonstrating the value of the humanities can never be fully accomplished by showing that the humanities serve other disciplines.
Scientific skepticism is a global phenomenon. Social psychology researchers sought to find out why and what we can do about it.
At the end of June, leaders of seven of the world's wealthiest economies will meet in Germany. We urge that they move forward quickly and collaboratively on a focused set of R&D initiatives to help solve some of the world's most urgent problems - by working together. At stake is the health and prosperity of millions, and the strength of all liberal democracies.
It's time to decouple maternity from womanhood. Recent advances in fertility science are helping pave the way toward inclusivity.
A variety of analytic tools can clarify public health priorities and predict the health impact of policy solutions.
The Covid-19 pandemic has underlined the importance of scientific advice to modern policymaking. But how can the use of expertise in politics be aligned with the needs and values of the public?
Redesigning social media to improve society requires a new platform for research.
This paper analyses the interrelations between academic disciplines and society beyond academia by the case of sociology in Norway.
