Science1 publisher2 min readPublished
Science's credibility trails its perceived value by at least 17 points in a national survey
NC State researchers surveyed 1,854 Americans and found 60% or more interested in science or convinced it benefits society, 43% calling it credible and 39% feeling they belong in it. The fix they propose rests on about 260 self-selected participants.
The Scientist · Science desk
What happened
- A national survey of 1,854 Americans by North Carolina State University researchers found 60% or more interested in science or convinced it has value to society, but fewer than half judging it credible or feeling they belong in it.
- On the two lowest items, 43% of respondents said science is credible and 39% reported a sense of belonging to the scientific community.
- Black Americans in the sample were less likely to believe science has value to society, and women were less likely to report being interested in science.
- Lead authors Brooklynn Joyner and Lincoln Larson say closing the gaps may require more chances for the public to engage directly with research, and point to citizen science as one route.
Compiled by The ScientistSomething wrong?How this is made
Why it matters
- constraint An outreach programme judged on enthusiasm has no instrument that registers movement on the two items that came in lowest, so it can hit its target while credibility stays at 43%.
- decision Funders weighing money for participatory projects have to decide on a subgroup of roughly 260 volunteers, where the effect of taking part cannot be separated from the enthusiasm that led people to take part.
- contradiction Joyner puts the credibility shortfall down to what the public can verify and Larson to distrust of scientists' motives; the first diagnosis asks for clearer explanation, the second for disclosure of who funds the work.
The recommendation rests on the citizen-science comparison, and that comparison is a correlation. About 14% of respondents had done more than one project [7]. On a sample of 1,854, that is roughly 260 people [18]. They reported more interest in science, more confidence in their own ability to do science, a stronger sense of belonging and a greater belief in science's value [7]. The thing a single survey does not tell you is the order of events: collecting and analysing data alongside scientists [9] may build a sense of belonging, or a sense of belonging may be what makes someone volunteer.
Asked about the 43%, the two lead authors gave different accounts. "People trust science, but they don't necessarily trust scientists," Larson said [10]. He said many people worry that scientists have hidden agendas shaped by corporate or political forces, and that this erodes perceived credibility even when it is rarely the case [11]. Joyner pointed at information instead, saying that "we live in an increasingly skeptical society where science can be spun to fit different agendas" and that the public is concerned it lacks what it needs to decipher the details [12].
The distance between the two sets of numbers is at least 17 points: 60% or more on interest and value against 43% on credibility, and the first figure is reported as a floor [2][3][17]. Joyner said she expects a gap, calling "some level of skepticism" "normal and healthy" [14]. On where the number ought to sit, she said: "And right now, I'm not sure that we know what that number should look like." [13]
Women, people without college or graduate degrees, and Black Americans reported weaker connections or beliefs in some areas [5]. The published Q&A reports which groups scored lower without giving the size of the differences [20]. Joyner said the pattern is well documented: "There's a lot of data that show science does have an accessibility and inclusivity problem across many fields of study." [19] She traced part of it to a history in which women and people of color were not allowed to practice science [21].
Joyner set a limit on how to read the belonging figure. "I don't think everyone needs to feel like they belong in science to be interested in science or benefit from it," she said [15].
What to watch
- Effect sizes for the demographic gaps in the PLOS One paper would show whether they run a few points or much wider.
- A study that measures the same people before and after a citizen science project would separate self-selection from effect.
- A repeat wave carrying the same credibility and belonging items would turn 43% and 39% into a trend.