Trust Is Social Bond

Mr Schäfer, as Professor of Science Communication, what would you say fosters public trust in science?

Mike Schäfer: Psychological research tells us that trust in science is heavily influenced by our perception of scientists. The first pillar of trust is all about perceived expertise. The second is integrity - that is, whether we view scientists as honest. The third pillar is public-spiritedness - in other words, whether we believe scientists are motivated by personal gain or the common good. And the fourth pillar is openness - are scientists really listening to citizens' needs, fears and concerns?

Sonia Seneviratne: Unfortunately, my work as a climate researcher has also taught me that scientists have limited control over whether people believe what we say. We've seen examples of paid propaganda designed to actively throw our research into doubt, all because certain elements of the political class don't like our findings. We just can't win in those cases, however honest or open we are!

Walter Thurnherr: Frankly, a certain amount of scepticism towards science is probably a healthy thing. The problem comes when that turns into outright rejection. None of us really understands any more how the tech we use works. We're surrounded by science that is beyond our grasp. That can feel overwhelming, and when we don't understand something, it all becomes an article of faith to accept what we're being told - which can also lead to mistrust. Science is constantly telling us what we should or shouldn't do, and the cumulative effect is that more and more people are just rejecting it flat-out. Not necessarily because they disagree with its findings - they don't even understand them! - but because they're trying to claw back some agency. It's a problem we need to take seriously. The world we all live in has become so science-based, and it doesn't surprise me at all that some people are pushing back.

Schäfer: In the complex societies we live in, it's rare for anyone to fully understand everything around them - whether that's how smartphones work or how decisions are made in parliament. Trust is a mechanism that allows us to have agency in such situations; perhaps not the best or only mechanism, but certainly an essential one. This is the same approach we take to science, which is inherently expert-driven. However much I like seeing citizens critically engaging with as many areas of science as possible, it's unrealistic to expect them to grasp every last detail. And that's where trust comes in.

People seem to trust climate scientists less than researchers in other fields.

Seneviratne: We tend to prefer positive news or details of exciting new technologies rather than listening to scientists talk about negative things. People can start to feel overwhelmed. But we can counter that by clearly communicating the facts and the science behind them. That's perfectly doable in climate science, too, and maybe we should be focusing on this aspect a bit more.

Schäfer: Public debate on climate change began 30 years ago, so third parties have had decades to cultivate doubt - and they've done a pretty good job! In many countries, attitudes to climate change say a lot about your ideological convictions. Trying to change those entrenched attitudes by explaining the facts is both difficult and time-consuming.

Would you go as far as to say that we're living in a post-fact world?

Schäfer: Trying to capture an era with a single buzzword often feels exaggerated, but this one actually has a grain of truth to it. Disinformation has certainly become more prominent, and we're increasingly seeing influential figures such as the US president making statements with scant regard for whether they're true or not. Facts and truth are losing their role as guiding principles, and trust in science is steadily being undermined.

Thurnherr: It's easier to place one's trust in people than in theories or technologies. But when everything gets reduced to opinion rather than veri­fiable facts, we end up in a dangerous free-for-all. And it's not just the post-truth culture, but also the growing mistrust of institutions more broadly. All this is more damaging than we realise, because it corrodes the whole framework and political culture that we take for granted, but which is on much less solid ground than we sometimes think.

What are the implications for democracy?

Thurnherr: Democracy depends on verifi­able facts, and on checking and correcting those facts whenever necessary. It relies on the ability to contradict politicians by presenting them with established findings, which is why it's so important to support and bolster the sharing of facts that form the basis of political decision-making. It's less about boosting people's expertise and more about fostering open discussions that encourage questions and counter-questions. The key to a democracy is listening and being heard, trying out new things, learning along the way - not assuming one's own view is the only valid one.

Seneviratne: Democracy is obviously partic­ularly reliant on citizens being properly informed and understanding the potential consequences of their decisions. It's therefore important that science has plenty of opportunities to present the facts. On a positive note, politicians are actually quite receptive to this point. When I have one-to-one discussions at parliamentary events, I'm sometimes surprised by the open-mindedness of political representatives from parties that are not known for being science-friendly. They listen and even express their fears or concerns - particularly farmers, who are already feeling the effects of climate change. Face-to-face conversations can be really valuable.

Schäfer: Trust is a social bond. But many citi­zens have no direct contact with researchers, and their perception of science is shaped by the media. Unfortunately, the erosion of journalism is steadily depleting the number of science journalists, and the few who are left are working under increasingly precarious conditions. At the same time, we have a growing group of people - especially the younger crowd - who rarely if ever engage with the traditional news media. The only information that these news-deprived individuals get is from digital and social media, which tend to contain a high proportion of lower-quality information and disinformation. That poses a real challenge.

Does Switzerland's direct democracy affect how people engage with science and knowledge?

Thurnherr: Absolutely, because we vote on something every three months! We've studied where voters get their information from, and two sources stand out: the official brochure on the subject of the vote and traditional media. The way in which these channels handle knowledge and ignorance is therefore crucial. I use the word "ignorance" deliberately, because there is a tendency in German-speaking regions to present expert knowledge as absolute truth. The best experts highlight the provisional nature of their findings and explain what they know in a way that makes listeners more informed - rather than giving the impression that the only smart person in the room is the expert with the microphone.

Does ETH have any kind of special responsibility as a federal university?

Thurnherr: It does, but not only ETH. In the past, ETH was the federal government's main centre of excellence, the go-to institution for information on new technological advances or scientific questions. But science and politics have drifted apart, and when people go a long time without talking to each other, they lose that mutual understanding. That's something we can, and should, change. We need to bring ETH closer to politics and politics closer to ETH. There's so much knowledge here at the university; it would be a shame not to use it. That's why we're working to establish the School of Public Policy at ETH.

Seneviratne: ETH was established to solve society's problems, and I still see it as an engine for generating knowledge and addressing the challenges that we face. Establishing the School of Public Policy is exactly the right kind of step here. At the same time, it would also make sense to have more researchers developing fact sheets that are easy to understand, particularly when it comes to referendums and shaping public opinion. As we've discussed, when you have a direct democracy it's incredibly important that citizens understand the implications of the decisions they're making.

How does a government deal with topics on which there is no scientific consensus?

Thurnherr: This was an issue during the Covid-19 pandemic. Some politicians were adamant that all scientists should be on the same page, but in fact it's the other way around: it's the Federal Council that needs to speak with one voice, not scientists. By its very nature, science is about making progress by debating, questioning, seeking and verifying facts, and generating new insights on that basis. As I said before, scientific findings have a provisional character. That said, there are some areas where the science is clear and broad consensus exists, such as biodiversity and climate change. You will always have some people claiming that the Earth is flat. But just because we don't know everything, that doesn't mean we don't know anything! And one thing we do know is that the Earth is more or less spherical - and that human activity is driving climate change.

Minorities are sometimes too loud to ignore…

Seneviratne: I think that's where the media needs to take responsibility, especially digital platforms. Controversy drives clicks, which can create artificial hype. But when it comes to climate change, the scientific consensus is extremely broad.

Schäfer: For some sections of society, that consensus is a powerful argument. But for other groups, it fuels the suspicion that those at the top are colluding behind closed doors. That means we have to be very aware of who we're communicating with. Because the same message can be interpreted very differently by different groups.