����Ӱҵ

The paper, published in the social science journal, , starts by outlining the “bizarre phenomenon” known as the transparency paradox: that transparency is needed to foster public trust in science, but being transparent about science, medicine and government can also reduce trust.

Hyde argues that, to find a solution to this paradox, it is important to consider what institutions are being transparent about.

The study revealed that, while transparency about good news increases trust, transparency about bad news, such as conflicts of interest or failed experiments, decreases it.

Therefore, one possible solution to the paradox, and a way to increase public trust, is to lie (which Hyde points out is unethical and ultimately unsustainable), by for example making sure bad news is hidden and that there is always only good news to report.

Instead, he suggests that a better way forward would be to tackle the root cause of the problem, which he argues is the public overidealising science. People still overwhelmingly believe in the ‘storybook image’ of a scientist who makes no mistakes, which creates unrealistic expectations.

Hyde is calling for a renewed effort to teach the public about scientific norms, which would be done through science education and communication to eliminate the “naïve” view of science as infallible.

Honorary Research Associate at ����Ӱҵ, Byron Hyde said, “Scientists and government leaders know that public trust in science is important because it enables informed decisions, guides public policy, and supports collective action on critical issues like health, climate, and technology. If science isn’t trusted, society becomes more vulnerable to misinformation and less able to effectively respond to complex challenges such as pandemics. Though it is often assumed transparency will increase trust in science, I argue that it can decrease trust in science instead.

“The truth is science isn’t perfect. Scientists are just as biased and equally as liable to make mistakes as everyone else. Most people think that science is and ought to be a lot better than it is or is even capable of being. I argue that people lose trust in science when it doesn’t match their expectations. This means that they distrust science that’s untrustworthy but, if their expectations are too high, it also means that they don’t trust science that’s imperfect but still trustworthy.”

Hyde says that the problem is that, although scientific facts are taught at school, the facts “about” science are not taught well enough. He added, “For example, most people know that global temperatures are rising, but very few people know how we know that. Not enough people know that science ’infers to the best explanation’ and doesn’t definitively ‘prove’ anything. Too many people think that scientists should be free from biases or conflicts of interest when, in fact, neither of these are possible. If we want the public to trust science to the extent that it’s trustworthy, we need to make sure they understand it first.”