Why trust in science requires open dialogue

“Trust in science” is often framed as a problem of fact-checking or reliability of evidence. But that framing misses the point. People don’t build trust in science through exposure to more data. They build it through relationships, relevance, and lived experience. Yet in discourse over trust in science, the conversation often veers into defending the top of the evidence pyramid, as if stronger methods alone can repair trust. This overreliance on method hierarchies oversimplifies misinformation, marginalizes alternative ways of knowing, and misunderstands how trust is built. We need epistemological pluralism, not just better trials. As an editor, I’ve seen how our narrow definitions of “rigor” actually fuel alienation and misunderstanding. If we want to defend science, we need to expand what we mean by it. And that begins with recognizing that truth is not a single peak. It's a terrain and we need to get better at navigating it.

If people don’t trust scientists, can they trust the science? Here’s what changed when I started speaking like a human, not a researcher. Years ago, I gave a talk at an outreach. I brought slides. Stats. Paleoclimate reconstructions. By slide three, I’d lost them. A woman raised her hand: “Can you just tell us what this means for the forest out back?” That moment hit me hard. She didn’t want a paper. She wanted a connection. So I tried something new: I told a story. About a drought 50 million years ago. The trees it killed. The mammals it shaped. And why it matters right now. They stayed after. They asked questions. They cared. That’s when I realized: Communication isn’t a soft skill. It’s survival. If we want the public to trust science, we can’t just drop data. We have to build bridges. Word by word. Here’s what helped me shift: • Stop translating science. Start relating it. • Lead with the why; then show the how. • Use stories. Not jargon. • Treat your audience like smart people… who just happen to be outside your field. • Speak to their world, not yours. In a time of climate change, confusion, and crisis, trust is everything. And trust doesn’t come from titles. It comes from meaning. 👀 I’m curious: when have you struggled to explain your science to others? Or felt frustrated that people “just don’t get it”? What helped?

“Science doesn’t speak for Itself, we do” Below are my thoughts inspired by a powerful LinkedIn article by John-Arne Røttingen on trust in science. Trust is everything. And it doesn’t come from just sharing scientific facts and expecting people to accept them. Trust is built by people, not by the science alone. As scientists, we often speak in terms of uncertainty: “may,” “could,” “likely.” That’s how science moves forward. But to someone outside the field, that can sound like we’re unsure or not confident in what we’re saying. It creates tension. Moreover, we are comfortable with facts changing as new evidence comes in. But many people are looking for firm answers, not shifting ones. That gap can make science feel distant or unreliable. If we want science to stay meaningful and helpful in people’s lives, especially in health, we have to show up as humans first. We need to communicate with empathy, not just expertise. And we need to remember, people don’t make decisions based on science alone. Faith, culture, personal experience; these matter deeply. If we ignore or dismiss these, we lose the chance to connect. Building trust means listening, not just informing. It means respecting other viewpoints, even when we don’t agree. That’s how science becomes not just a source of knowledge, but a force for good in people’s lives. To truly improve health, we must do more than share what we know, we must earn the trust to be heard.

Are you a researcher? 83% of the population wants you to communicate and engage more with them! Despite concerns about a "trust crisis," a global study shows that trust in scientists isn’t in crisis. This creates the perfect opportunity for scientists to position themselves positively in the public eye, sharing their work and findings with a wider audience. The message is clear: scientists’ voices are needed not just in labs, but in communities, media, and decision-making rooms. 📊 In a groundbreaking survey of over 71,000 respondents from 68 countries, Viktoria Cologna and Niels G. Mede reveal key insights into public trust in scientists: 🔑 Key Takeaways: 👉 Global trust in scientists is moderately high (average score of 3.62/5). 👉 Scientists are widely regarded as competent, though perceptions of their integrity and openness could improve. 👉 While trust levels vary regionally, there’s no evidence of a "global crisis" of trust in science. 💬 And here’s the crucial point for #scicomm: A striking 83% of respondents believe scientists should actively engage with the public and policymakers. This signals a need for authentic communication efforts: not just sharing scientific findings with peers but fostering a meaningful dialogue between researchers and the public. 🔗 Why this matters: In an era of misinformation and information overload, strengthening trust in science is critical to addressing global challenges like public health, energy solutions, and poverty reduction. Are you already engaging with the public, or are you planning to do so? #ScienceCommunication #PublicTrust #Research #scicomm

Academic publishing isn't just about sharing papers - it's about maintaining scientific integrity. Did you know that response articles are currently being hindered by massive publication fees? I recently came across an eye-opening article that highlights a critical issue in scientific communication. I wouldn’t spend $4,000 just to publish a response that corrects potential errors in research! That's exactly what happened to researchers challenging a paper about conservation policy in Western Canadian boreal forest. The real problem? Journals are creating financial barriers that: • Suppress scientific discourse • Limit diverse perspectives • Potentially spread misinformation Why does this matter? Because scientific advancement depends on: ✅ Transparent critique ✅ Open dialogue ✅ Rigorous evaluation This essentially is gatekeeping scientific truth. Journals are telling researchers that correcting mistakes is a luxury, not a responsibility. The solution? Journals must: • Drop response article publication costs • Encourage technical critiques • Prioritize scientific integrity over profit I always wonder - what can we do as a community to make publishing more sustainable? Share your thoughts below! #Publishing #Science #OpenAccess #Research #Professor #PhD #Postgraduate #Academia