There are many ways that trust plays a crucial role in science, both between researchers and between researchers and various communities impacted by their research. Scientific practices can operate in ways that either facilitate, or undermine, trust in science. This contribution will examine the role of science communication in facilitating (or undermining) public trust in science and science-based policy recommendations. This will be done by looking at some potential failures in the public communication of science during the COVID-19 pandemic that have the potential to undermine trust in scientists. Finally, I draw out lessons that this case has for how we might improve science communication practices.
AltenmüllerMarlene S., NudingStephen, and GollwitzerMario. 2021. “No Harm in Being Selfcorrection: Self-Criticism and Reform Intentions Increase Researchers’ Epistemic Trustworthiness and Credibility in the Eyes of the Public. ” Public Understanding of Science 30 (8): 962–976.
2.
BaierAnette.1986. “Trust and Anti-trust. ” Ethics 96: 231–260.
3.
BrommeR., MedeN. G., ThommE., KremerB., and ZieglerR.. 2022. “An Anchor in Troubled Times: Trust in Science Before and Within the COVID-19 Pandemic. ” PloS one 17 (2): e0262823.
4.
BurkiTalha.2020. “Covid-19 in Latin America. ” The Lancet Infectious Diseases 20 (5): 547–548.
5.
ChaiP. R., FerroE. G., KirshenbaumJ. M., HayesB. D., CulbrethS. E., BoyerE. W., and EricksonT. B.. 2020. “Intentional Hydroxychloroquine Overdose Treated with High-Dose Diazepam: An Increasing Concern in the COVID-19 Pandemic. ” Journal of Medical Toxicology 16: 314–320.
ChengK. K., LamT. H., and LeungC. C.. 2020. “Wearing Face Masks in the Community During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Altruism and Solidarity. ” The Lancet 399 (10336): e39–e40.
8.
Cunningham-BurleySarah.2006. “Public Knowledge and Public Trust. ” Public Health Genomics 9 (3): 204–210.
9.
de Melo-MartínInmaculada, and IntemannKristen. 2012. “Interpreting Evidence: Why Values Can Matter as Much as Science. ” Perspectives Biolology and Medicine 55 (1): 59–70.
10.
de Melo-MartínInmaculada, and IntemannKristen. 2018. The Fight Against Doubt: How to Bridge the gap Between Scientists and the Public . Oxford: Oxford University Press.
DruckmanJ. N., KlarS., KrupnikovY., LevenduskyM., and RyanJ. B.. 2021. “Affective Polarization, Local Contexts and Public Opinion in America. ” Nature Human Behaviour 5 (1): 28–38.
13.
DudleyM. Z., BernierR., BrewerJ., and SalmonD. A.. 2021. “Walking the Tightrope: Reevaluating Science Communication in the Era of COVID-19 Vaccines. ” Vaccine 39 (39): 5453–5455.
14.
EsmaeilzadehPouyan.2022. “Public Concerns and Burdens Associated with Face Mask-Wearing: Lessons Learned from the COVID-19 Pandemic. ” Progress in Disaster Science 13: 100215.
15.
GalaitsiS. E., CeganJ. C., VolkK., JoynerM., TrumpB. D., and LinkovI.. 2021. “The Challenges of Data Usage for the United States’ COVID-19 Response. ” International Journal of Information Management 59: 102352.
16.
GautretPhilippe, LagierJean-Christophe, ParolaPhilippe, HoangVan Thuan, MeddebLine, MailheMorgane, DoudierBarbara, 2020. “Hydroxychloroquine and Azithromycin as a Treatment of COVID-19: Results of an Open-label non-Randomized Clinical Trial. ” International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents 56 (1): 105949.
HardwigJohn.1991. “The Role of Trust in Knowledge. ” Journal of Philosophy 88 (12): 693–708.
21.
HeLu, HeChangyang, ReynoldsTera L, BaiQiushi, HuangYicong, LiChen, and ZhengKai. 2021. “Why Do People Oppose Mask Wearing? A Comprehensive Analysis of US Tweets During the COVID-19 Pandemic. ” Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association 28 (7): 1564–1573.
22.
HendriksFriederike, KienhuesDorothe, and BrommeRainer. 2015. “Measuring Laypeople's Trust in Experts in a Digital Age: The Muenster Epistemic Trustworthiness Inventory (METI).” PloS ONE 10 (10): e0139309.
23.
HendriksFriederike, JanssenInse, and JucksRegina. 2022. “Balance as Credibility? How Presenting One- vs. Two-Sided Messages Affects Ratings of Scientists’ and Politicians’ Trustworthiness. ” Health Communication , 1–8. doi: 10.1080/10410236.2022.2111638.
24.
IntemannKristen.2020. “Understanding the Problem of ‘Hype’: Exaggeration, Values, and Trust in Science. ” Canadian Journal of Philosophy 52 (3): 279–294.
25.
JohnStephen.2018. “Epistemic Trust and the Ethics of Science Communication: Against Transparency, Openness, Sincerity and Honesty. ” Social Epistemology 32 (2): 75–87.
26.
LedfordHeidi.2020. “Chloroquine Hype is Derailing the Search for Coronavirus Treatments. ” Nature 580 (7805): 573.
LewisDyani.2022. “Why the WHO Took Two Years to Say COVID is Airborne. ” Nature 604 (7904): 26–31.
29.
MasonChris, and ManzottiElisa. 2009. “Induced Pluripotent Stem Cells: An Emerging Technology Platform and the Gartner Hype Cycle. ” Regenerative Medicine 4: 329–331.
30.
MasterZubin, and ÖzdemirVural. 2008. “Selling Translational Research: Is Science a Value-Neutral Autonomous Enterprise?.” The American Journal of Bioethics 8 (3): 52–54.
31.
MasterZubin, and ResnikDavid B. 2013. “Hype and Public Trust in Science. ” Science and Engineering Ethics 19 (2): 321–335.
32.
MayerRoger C., DavisJames H., and SchoormanF. David. 1995. “An Integrative Model of Organizational Trust. ” Academy of Management Review 20 (3): 709–734.
33.
McKaughanDaniel J., and ElliottKevin C. 2013. “Backtracking and the Ethics of Framing: Lessons from Voles and Vasopressin. ” Accountability in Research 20 (3): 206–226.
34.
McKaughanDaniel J., and ElliottKevin. 2018. “
Just the Facts or Expert Opinion? The Backtracking Approach to Socially Responsible Science Communication. ” In Ethics and Practice in Science Communication , edited by PriestS., GoodwinJ., and DahlstromM. F., 197–213. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
35.
MedveckyFabien, and LeachJoan. 2019. An Ethics of Science Communication . Cham: Springer.
36.
MehtaBella, SalmonJane, and IbrahimSaid. 2020. “Potential Shortages of Hydroxychloroquine for Patients with Lupus During the Coronavirus Disease 2019 Pandemic. ” JAMA Health Forum 1 (4): e200438.
37.
NaglerR. H., VogelR. I., GollustS. E., RothmanA. J., FowlerE. F., and YzerM. C.. 2020. “Public Perceptions of Conflicting Information Surrounding COVID-19: Results from a Nationally Representative Survey of US Adults. ” PloS one 15 (10): e0240776.
38.
NisbetMatthew C., and ScheufeleDietram A. 2009. “What's Next for Science Communication? Promising Directions and Lingering Distractions. ” American Journal of Botany 96 (10): 1767–1778.
39.
NoarSeth M., and AustinLucinda. 2020. “(Mis)Communicating About COVID-19: Insights from Health and Crisis Communication. ” Health Communication 35 (14): 1735–1739.
40.
OdenbaughJay.2008. “Ecology and the Inescapability of Values. ” Science and Engineering Ethics 14 (4): 593–596.
41.
PeeplesLynne, 2020. “What the Data Say about Wearing Face Masks. ” Nature 586 (7828): 186–189.
42.
PriestSusanna.2013. “
Can Strategic and Democratic Goals Coexist in Communicating Science? Nanotechnology as a Case Study in the Ethics of Science Communication and the Need for ‘Critical’ Science Literacy. ” In Ethical Issues in Science Communicatin: A Theory-based Approach , edited by GoodwinJ., DahlstromM. F., and PriestS., 229–243. Charleston, SC: CreateSpace.
43.
QuinnSandra C., JamisonAmelia M., and FreimuthVicki. 2020. “ Communicating Effectively about Emergency Use Authorization and Vaccines in the COVID-19 Pandemic. “ American Journal of Public Health 111 (3): 355–358.
44.
RowanKatherine E.1991. “ When Simple Language Fails: Presenting Difficult Science to the Public. “ Journal of Technical Writing and Communication 21 (4): 369–382.
45.
RuiuMaria L.2020. “Mismanagement of Covid-19: Lessons Learned from Italy. ” Journal of Risk Research 23 (7–8): 1007–1020.
46.
SchemanNaomi.2011. Shifting Ground: Knowledge and Reality, Transgression and Trustworthiness . Oxford: Oxford University Press.
47.
SchrageMichael.2004. “Great Expectations. ” MIT Technology Review 107 (8): 2.
48.
SinghJerome A., and RavinettoRafaella. 2020. “COVID-19 Therapeutics: How to Show Confusion and Break Public Trust During International Public Health Emergencies. ” Journal of Pharmaceutical Policy and Practice 13 (1): 1–7.
WarrenGeorge W., and LofstedtRagnar. 2021. “Risk Communication and COVID-19 in Europe: Lessons for Future Public Health Crises. ” Journal of Risk Research 25 (10): 1–15.
WeingartPeter, EngelsAnita, and PansegrauPetra. 2000. “Risks of Communication: Discourses on Climate Change in Science, Politics, and the Mass Media. ” Public Understanding of Science 9 (3): 261–284.
53.
WeingartPeter, and GuentherLars. 2016. “Science Communication and the Issue of Trust. ” Journal of Science Communication 15 (5): 1–11.
54.
WilholtTorsten.2013. “Epistemic Trust in Science. ” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 64 (2): 233–253.
