Key points
- Transparency paradox: openness can both build, reduce trust
- Hiding bad news may boost trust, but is unethical
- Public over-idealises science
- Science education must teach how science works
ISLAMABAD: Research by philosopher of science and Honorary Research Associate at Bangor University, Byron Hyde, examined the role of transparency in building public trust in science.
The paper, published in the journal Theory & Society, begins by describing the “bizarre phenomenon” known as the transparency paradox: transparency is necessary to foster public trust in science, yet being transparent about science, medicine, and government can also diminish that trust.
Hyde argues that, to resolve this paradox, it is crucial to consider what institutions are being transparent about.
The study found that while transparency regarding good news boosts trust, transparency about bad news—such as conflicts of interest or failed experiments—undermines it.
How does a lie work?
One possible solution to the paradox, and a way to increase public trust, is to lie (which Hyde notes is unethical and ultimately unsustainable), for instance, by concealing bad news and only presenting good news.
Instead, he proposes a better approach would be to address the root cause of the problem, which he claims is the public’s over-idealisation of science. People still largely believe in the ‘storybook image’ of a scientist who never makes mistakes, leading to unrealistic expectations.
Hyde is calling for a renewed effort to educate the public about scientific norms, achieved through science education and communication, to dispel the “naïve” view of science as infallible.
Biasness of scientists
The Honorary Research Associate at Bangor University 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 that 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.”
Should we trust half science?
Hyde points out that although scientific facts are taught in schools, the facts “about” science are not sufficiently taught.
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 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 is 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.”
