Reacción a "Spanish population, among the most trusting in scientists, according to a study in 68 countries"

I had identified this study and was waiting for it to be published, because I had heard that it had been previously deposited in a repository. I was pleased to be able to see the questions, but I miss a lot of information, although I realise that this is the consequence of publishing a study of such breadth in a journal, with the space limitations they pose.

The article is about trust in scientists, not science. The press release therefore misses the point, as they insist on talking about trust in science, which is not measured in the questionnaire used for the study. And this raises the first problem. Trust in scientists is high worldwide. So is trust in science. Especially if we refer to them as ‘people who study nature, medicine, physics, economics, history and psychology, among other things’, and refer to science as ‘our understanding of the world through observation and experimentation’, which are the definitions used in the survey. The evidence indicates that the attitude of the population depends on the type of science being discussed. At CIEMAT's Science, Technology and Society Research Unit, we differentiate between epistemic science (as a source of knowledge, which is the one referred to in the study), praxeological science (solution-oriented) and instrumental science (profit-oriented). The attitude towards the former is essentially positive, the attitude towards the latter depends on what it is applied to and how people perceive it to affect them directly, and the attitude towards the latter is rather negative, mainly because it is associated with the image that science is manipulated or at the service of specific groups, or elites.

In relation to the latter, the article stresses that there is majority support for the participation of scientists in political decision-making. This is a result that is also found in other studies. But again, it all depends on how you ask the question. In the abstract, it is easy to agree that science should contribute to policy decisions or, as asked in Spain, to agree with the phrase ‘knowledge is the best basis for making laws or regulations’. This view is compatible with, and occurs together with, the view that expresses distrust in the connection between science and politics, fundamentally because of the discrediting of politics. This is the breeding ground in which populisms are flourishing, which also manifest themselves in the form of science-related populisms. In fact, the article mentions that they have found a negative association between trust in scientists and a preference for social hierarchy and inequality. On the other hand, the press release highlights that 52% of the people who participated in the study agree that those involved in science should be involved in political decisions. This is an important figure which, as I said, shows that this is an issue that, in the abstract, is easy for the population to accept, but at the same time reflects the fact that the other half is not clear or disagrees.

So, although the article notes that their work ‘refutes the narrative that there is a crisis of confidence in science’, I do not agree that this is the case. Especially because, as I said at the beginning, they do not measure trust in science. On the other hand, because they do not provide descriptive results and measure trust (I insist, in scientists, not in science) in aggregate. By aggregating, we are actually taking the part for the whole, incorporating people with negative attitudes along with those who show positive attitudes. In this way we do not know the prevalence of the negative perspective. And this is a key data to be able to analyse the evolution (is this percentage increasing?).

In this sense, for example, some of the results offered by Eurobarometer 516, European citizens' knowledge and attitudes towards science and technology in 2021, are interesting. It measures what might be called a distrustful attitude towards science. The results indicate that, in Spain, just over 65% agree or strongly agree with the statement ‘science and technology could be used to improve the lives of everyone, but in practice they mainly improve the lives of people who are already better off’. This percentage is close to 80% for the statement ‘science and technology could be used to improve the living conditions of less developed countries, but in practice they mainly improve those of rich countries’. Finally, more than 75% agree with the statement ‘science and technology could be used to improve the environment and fight climate change, but in practice they mainly help companies to make money’. This is a different picture from the one painted in the article, in my view. And both coexist.

So, in closing, the information we get depends very much on what and how we ask. When we ask about science as a source of knowledge, we generally get a positive picture, but it is not complete. To get a better idea of what to expect, it is necessary to ask about the different types of science. On the other hand, even when we focus only on science as a source of knowledge, it is important to know also the percentage of people who do not agree even with this idea. Finally, we cannot equate trust in science with trust in those who do science, because these are also different issues.