Most Americans continue to trust scientists – but their faith is split over party lines

Most Americans still maintain a trust in scientific research, despite the recent rise in popularity of anti-vaxxers, climate change deniers and flat Earthers.

Data from Washington, D.C.’s Pew Research Center shows the average U.S. citizen’s confidence in scientists is only matched by their trust in the military.

This on-going trust far exceeds the levels of public confidence in other institutions, such as the media, business leaders and elected officials.

In fact, the majority of people now believe that scientists should replace some of these figures in policy debates about scientific issues.

Who do you trust? Data from Washington, D.C.’s Pew Research Center shows the average U.S. citizen still has confidence in scientists – a faith that is only matched by the military

Data from Washington, D.C.’s Pew Research Center shows the average U.S. citizen’s confidence in scientists is only matched by their trust in the military. This on-going trust far exceeds the levels of public confidence in other institutions

WHAT EXACTLY DID THE STUDY FIND?

Americans tend to trust science practitioners, who directly provide treatments and recommendations to the public, more than researchers working in the same areas. For example, 47 per cent say dietitians provide fair and accurate information about their recommendations all or most of the time, compared with 24 per cent for nutrition scientists discussing their research.

There is a similar gap when it comes to information from medical doctors and medical research scientists (48 per cent and 32 per cent, respectively, say they provide fair and accurate information all or most of the time). However, trust in environmental health specialists – practitioners who offer recommendations to organizations and community groups – is about the same as that for environmental research scientists.

A majority of U.S. adults (54 per cent, including equal shares of Democrats and Republicans) believe the public should play an important role in guiding policy decisions on scientific issues; 44 per cent say public opinion should not play an important role because the issues are too complex for the average person to understand.

Public confidence in medical scientists is similar to that for scientists overall; 87 per cent report either a great deal (35 per cent) or a fair amount (52 per cent) of confidence in medical scientists to act in the best interests of the public.

Black and Hispanic adults are more likely than whites to see professional or research misconduct as a very or moderately big problem. For doctors, for example, 71 per cent of blacks and 63 per cent of Hispanics say misconduct is at least a moderately big problem, compared with 43 per cent of whites. A larger percentage of blacks (59 per cent) and Hispanics (60 per cent) than whites (42 per cent) say misconduct by medical research scientists is a very big or moderately big problem.

Overall, 86 per cent of Americans say they have at least ‘a fair amount’ of confidence in scientists to act in the public interest. This includes 35 per cent who have ‘a great deal’ of confidence, up from 21 per cent in 2016.

However, Americans are still divided along party lines in terms of how they view the value and objectivity of scientists and their ability to act in the public interest.

More Democrats (43 per cent) than Republicans (27 per cent) have ‘a great deal’ of confidence in scientists – a difference of 16 per centage points.

The gap between the two parties on this issue (including independents who identify with each party, respectively) was 11 percentage points in 2016 and has remained at least that large since.

There are also clear political divisions over the role of scientific experts in policy matters, with Democrats more likely to want experts involved and to trust their judgement.

Most Democrats (73 per cent) believe scientists should take an active role in scientific policy debates.

By contrast, a majority of Republicans (56 per cent) say scientists should focus on establishing sound scientific facts and stay out of such policy debates.

The two political groups also differ over whether scientific experts are generally better at making decisions about scientific policy issues than other people: 54 per cent of Democrats say they are, while 66 per cent of Republicans think scientists’ decisions are no different from or worse than other people’s.

Finally, Democrats and Republicans have different degrees of faith in scientists’ ability to be unbiased; 62 per cent of Democrats say scientists’ judgments are based solely on facts, while 55 per cent of Republicans say they’re just as likely to be as partial as other people’s.

The Center’s new survey highlights the degree to which the public values scientific expertise and how those perceptions are sometimes shaped by the crosscurrents of politics as well as familiarity with scientists and their work.

More specifically, it shines a spotlight on trust and potential sources of mistrust connected with scientists who work in three fields: medicine, nutrition and the environment. They include medical research scientists, medical doctors, nutrition research scientists, dietitians, environmental research scientists and environmental health specialists.

The survey of 4,464 adults was conducted in January 2019 using Pew Research Center’s American Trends Panel, a nationally representative panel of randomly selected U.S. adults

The survey of 4,464 adults was conducted in January 2019 using Pew Research Center’s American Trends Panel, a nationally representative panel of randomly selected U.S. adults.

The survey probed for people’s trust in scientists, along with potential sources of mistrust. To capture trust, the survey asked respondents how often they can count on scientists to perform their jobs with competence, to show care or concern for the public and to present their findings or recommendations in a fair and accurate way.

The survey also asked for views about scientific integrity, including the extent to which misconduct is a problem, the degree to which scientists are open about potential conflicts of interest, and whether they accept accountability for mistakes.

HOW DO SCIENTISTS THINK LIFE ON EARTH BEGAN?

Life on Earth may have started thanks to a modified version of modern-day DNA’s sister molecule, scientists believe.

DNA is the backbone of life and almost all of our planet depends on it but, on primordial Earth, a primitive version of its lesser-known sister – RNA – was the focal point for evolution, experts say.

RNA is structurally similar to DNA, except one of the four fundamental pieces, thymine, is substituted for uracil.

This changes the shape and structure of the molecule and researchers have long believed this chemical was vital to the development of Earth’s first lifeforms.

An accidental discovery by Harvard academics published in December 2018 found that a slightly different version of RNA may have been the key ingredient allowing life on Earth to blossom.

Scientists claim that a chemical called inosine may have been present in place of guanine, allowing for life to develop.

This slight change to the bases, known as a nucleotides, may provide the first known proof of the ‘RNA World Hypothesis’ – a theory which claims RNA was integral to primitive lifeforms – they say.

READ SOURCE