Distrust, science and pancakes

It is a paradox. For years, administrators and scientists have been complaining about the growing distrust of science. But according to surveys such as those by the Rathenau Institute, Dutch citizens have more confidence in science than in any other institution (think of the House of Representatives, the judiciary and journalism). In fact, during the last Rathenau survey, confidence in science had even grown! Admittedly, that was in 2021, a while ago. Still, where does this paradox come from?

Often, reference is made to the relatively small group of 'science-distrusting people' who are said to be making more and more noise, including via social media. That the majority now thinks very differently about it, you would only read back in surveys such as that of the Rathenau.

I thought about it when I saw a video of Klaas Dijkhoff and fellow men about their movement Voor Ons Nederland. The silent – ​​and according to VON 'mild' – majority consists of 7 people who want to go to the pancake boat. The video shows what can happen if they do not open their mouths. Then they end up where the screaming minority wants to go: maybe at McDonald's (2 people) or in a pizzeria (1 person).

And however flat, VON has a point here. The mood in a group can change if 10 to 35 percent has a different opinion, research shows. At the same time, reality – and the Dutch – are fortunately more colorful, varied and interesting than the VON menu. And more unruly. Just take the layering of that concept 'trust in science'. Do people then think of trust in scientific institutions such as universities? Trust in scientists? In scientific methods?

Wheat and chaff

That makes quite a difference, researchers from the Rathenau Institute themselves recently wrote . They mentioned the Dutch sociologists who showed eight years ago that people on average have quite a lot of confidence in scientific methods, but that at the same time, less educated people have much less confidence in scientific institutions. That is not necessarily because they think that methods will eventually separate the wheat from the chaff, while institutions are meanwhile being carried away by hypes and the wishes of grant providers. The sociologists mainly think that these people equate scientific institutions with all those other institutions that do not seem to care about them and in which they have lost confidence.

At least, in the US, where this research was conducted. In the Netherlands, this does not have to be exactly the case. Because cultural differences and differences in the way science is embedded in a society can significantly influence trust in science (press) and scientific institutions. You can see this in a large comparative study of trust in scientists in 68 (!) countries, published this spring in Nature Human Behaviour . It beautifully illustrates that religiosity is globally associated with more trust in scientists on average, not least in predominantly Islamic countries such as Malaysia and Turkey. Undoubtedly surprising for those who are mainly familiar with the opposite results of studies into the Dutch Bible Belt, or into American evangelicals and their resistance to vaccinations . It underlines how carefully you should interpret research.

McDonald's

Fortunately, this global study also provides three more broadly valid starting points. The first is that people who wish or accept that certain social groups are superior to others – such as men over women – have fairly consistently lower trust in scientists. They seem to fear that scientists will debunk myths that justify such dominance, or use technology to promote greater equality between groups. In the US, you often find them among Trump voters . Have the most fanatical among them made a lot of noise to ensure that scientists are now under fire all over the US – like the ‘McDonald’s lovers’ in that VON pancake metaphor? Perhaps a future Rathenau study will tell us something about how this is the case in the Netherlands.

More encouraging are two other points of contact. Namely that most people (an average of 83 percent worldwide) would like scientists to communicate clearly about their work. And that a smaller majority (58 percent) indicates how this can be done. Not necessarily by explaining to a limited group of television viewers that science makes things better – still a bit like the method of the old-fashioned authoritarian doctor in a white coat. And also not with the almost worn-out mantra that innovation drives the economy; that also polishes away the humanities and the essential question of meaning. What these people indicate is simpler: they think that scientists are (too) open enough to their perspectives and questions.

It seems to me, with all the chatter on social media and from across the ocean, a ray of hope. Because it creates room for improvement. And, through better listening, for truly mutual conversations about technology, science and the future. Such science communication, which is already regularly worked on in the Netherlands, immediately offersopportunities to get that richly varied silent majority talking.

Hopefully they are mild.

Margriet van der Heijden is a physicist and professor of science communication at the Eindhoven University of Technology. This was the last column. Thanks for reading and responding!