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

The main findings of this study tell us something we’ve known for decades: society continues to trust scientists. Specifically, looking at Spain, we remain among the top countries globally on this matter. However, while the overall result of this research is not groundbreaking, there are many reasons to consider it a highly relevant study, capable of sparking numerous reflections and even inspiring future policies.

First, this is the first large-scale investigation conducted since the pandemic. This is crucial, as it has often been assumed since then that society has lost trust in scientists. In this regard, this research reconfirms that scientists are still perceived as trustworthy individuals.

Of course, the other side of the findings shows that, although not the majority, there are groups of people who clearly distrust scientists, and this is a cause for concern. This is more alarming than ever, as these groups are highly visible on certain social media platforms (for example, X’s new practices favor denialist narratives). Furthermore, some individuals from these groups hold significant political and corporate decision-making power. In this sense, the study provides valuable information for considering political actions.

Second, the study offers a genuinely global perspective. Specifically, it covers 68 countries across all continents, whereas such surveys typically focus on one country or region, often underrepresenting the Global South. The global vision of this research provides valuable insights into assumptions often based on results from the United States, Europe, or other Global North countries. For instance, the findings regarding the influence of religiosity on trust perception are particularly interesting, as encompassing so many countries and cultures allows for more nuanced observations.

Third, the research examines the concept of "trust" in depth, exploring four dimensions—perceived competence, benevolence, integrity, and transparency—rather than superficially addressing it as a single dimension, as many other studies do.

Fourth, this is a pre-registered study, an open science practice that enhances transparency in research.

Finally, it is important to clarify that this is not a study about trust in science (as the press release erroneously titled it) but about trust in scientists. This distinction is not trivial, as behavioral psychology shows that the processes leading us to form attitudes and perceptions about people (in this case, scientists) are not the same as those describing how we perceive objects or concepts (like science) and have different consequences.