A new study finds that while most Americans are interested in science and believe it benefits society, the public’s relationship with science is more complicated than those positive views suggest.
In a national survey of 1,854 Americans, North Carolina State University researchers found that while 60% or more were interested in science or believed it has value to society, fewer than half considered science credible or felt a sense of belonging in the scientific community.
The findings also revealed significant differences across demographic groups, with women, people without college or graduate degrees and Black Americans reporting weaker connections or beliefs about science in some areas – underscoring persistent challenges around the accessibility and inclusivity of science.
Addressing those gaps may require increasing opportunities for the public to engage directly with scientific research, according to the study’s lead authors Brooklynn Joyner and Lincoln Larson, both of the Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism Management at NC State.
One approach they point to is citizen science – also known as participatory or community science – which invites everyday people to collaborate with scientists on research projects through data collection and analysis.
About 14% of surveyed Americans had participated in multiple citizen science projects, and these individuals reported greater interest in science, more confidence in their ability to do science, a stronger sense of belonging and a greater belief in science’s value.
In the following Q&A, Joyner and Larson discuss the study’s findings and what they reveal about Americans’ relationship with science, the barriers to making science more accessible and inclusive, and the potential of citizen science to strengthen those connections.
The survey found that most Americans are interested in and value science, but only 43% believe it is credible. How do you explain that discrepancy?
Joyner: In my experience, people want to believe science just as much as they are interested in it and value it. But we live in an increasingly skeptical society where science can be spun to fit different agendas and the public is concerned – sometimes rightfully so – that they don’t have the information needed to decipher the details. We expect to see a small gap in perceived credibility of science – some level of skepticism is normal and healthy – but we want to be careful that this gap doesn’t widen so much that it causes real issues. And right now, I’m not sure that we know what that number should look like.
Larson: I think the discrepancy here might be attributed to something we’ve seen in some of our other research: People trust science, but they don’t necessarily trust scientists. While the public believes in the value of science, many people worry that scientists themselves have hidden agendas and might be influenced by some larger corporate or political forces. Even if this is rarely the case, it can erode perceived credibility.
Black Americans were less likely to believe science has value to society, while women were less likely to be interested. Do these findings suggest that science has an accessibility and inclusivity problem?
Joyner: There’s a lot of data that shows science does have an accessibility and inclusivity problem across many fields of study. This isn’t a new problem either. Historically, women and people of color were not allowed to practice science, and the lack of inclusivity in science we see today is one long-term result of that. Our study suggests that when science is inaccessible to groups of people, it might affect how they think and feel about science more broadly.
Larson: If we truly want a diverse public to value and trust science, then we have to make sure that science is accessible to and understood by all people in that larger population. Scientists and science communicators have to find a way to connect with those groups who have been historically marginalized or excluded from science (e.g., women, racial/ethnic minorities).
Just 39% of survey participants felt a sense of belonging to science. What might be preventing people who are interested in science from feeling that they belong in it?
Joyner: I don’t think everyone needs to feel like they belong in science to be interested in science or benefit from it. But I do think it’s important that people seeking that deeper connection to science are able to build a sense of belonging easily and authentically. I think that’s where opportunities are lacking; once someone is interested, okay, then what? They don’t always know what they can do to learn more or get more involved, and when they do, it’s critical that it’s a positive experience. That’s not always the case. I would like to see us continue to improve public access to science, make it approachable and make it more welcoming.
Larson: We have to make science accessible. We have to make science relatable. It’s not just an academic thing that only elites in white lab coats can do and understand. People must see science as part of their everyday lives, and they must see the benefits it provides to everyone.
What role do you think citizen science could play in making science feel more accessible and relevant to people who don’t traditionally see themselves as part of the scientific community?
Joyner: I’m hoping citizen science can play a big role in improving these outcomes. I think one of the problems is just that not a lot of people know that it’s something the public can do. For almost anything someone is interested in – birds, space or the cleanliness of their local creek – there’s a citizen science project that needs their help to solve challenges they care about. By involving people directly in science that matters to them, we can improve transparency with data, the scientific process and how decisions are made. Spreading awareness and helping citizen science reach a broader audience, including traditionally excluded or marginalized groups, is an important next step.
Larson: Citizen science is valuable because it gives everyone a chance to play a role in the scientific process and to do so in a way that is relevant and meaningful to them. When volunteers engage in citizen science projects, they learn that science can be both impactful and fun.
Based on your findings, what do you think scientists and scientific institutions could do differently to build a stronger relationship with the public?
Joyner: First, I don’t think this relationship is as strained as it feels. While there are loud voices and points of tension, we have to remember that the majority of Americans feel positively toward science and scientists. But we do have work to do to make everyone feel like science is something they can be part of and something they’re benefiting from. Second, people have said we need better public engagement with science. I’m starting to think that’s a backwards way of defining this relationship. We need better science engagement with the public. We scientists need a greater presence in our communities. Participatory science is one great way to do that, and more scientists can advance their research with this approach than they realize.
Larson: I also think the strain is overstated. Overall, the public generally has a positive relationship with science. But that relationship becomes frayed in an era where “alternative facts” become reality and scientists are regularly mocked and villainized on social media. That’s why many people think science lacks credibility; it’s a communication problem. But if those critics have a chance to truly engage with science in an authentic way, perhaps through a participatory science project, their views and the larger narrative surrounding science might begin to change.
-moore-
