A New Dark Age? Truth, Trust, and Environmental Science

Abstract

This review examines the alleged crisis of trust in environmental science and its impact on public opinion, policy decisions in the context of democratic governance, and the interaction between science and society. In an interdisciplinary manner, the review focuses on the following themes: the trustworthiness of environmental science, empirical studies of levels of trust and trust formation; social media, environmental science, and disinformation; trust in environmental governance and democracy; and co-production of knowledge and the production of trust in knowledge. The review explores both the normative issue of trustworthiness and empirical studies on how to build trust. The review does not provide any simple answers to whether trust in science is generally in decline or whether we are returning to a less enlightened era in public life with decreased appreciation of knowledge and truth. The findings are more nuanced, showing signs of both distrust and trust in environmental science. Expected final online publication date for the Annual Review of Environment and Resources, Volume 47 is October 2022. Please see http://www.annualreviews.org/page/journal/pubdates for revised estimates.

Trust in Climate Scientists and Political Ideology: A 26-Country Analysis

“…However, research conducted in predominantly Anglophone countries has shown that right-wing political ideology is associated with lower trust in climate scientists compared to left-wing ideology 8 . A particularly strong focus on the USA, where political gaps on climate change are large 9 , and other Western countries have resulted in a narrow geographic perspective on the relationship between political ideology and trust in climate scientists, centered on specific countries and their peculiarities 10 . This represents a significant gap in the literature, considering that findings in behavioral science from Western countries tend to have limited generalizability to other regions (e.g., 11,12 ).…”

“…Yet, it remains unclear whether this applies to trust in climate scientists specifically. While climate change beliefs are about an individual's stance on the existence and/or causes of climate change, trust in climate scientists is linked to the perceived expertise, credibility, and authority of the scientific community within the field of climate science 10 . Therefore, trust in climate scientists can be influenced by factors such as perceptions of scientists' ability, benevolence, competence, and integrity 41 .…”

How people decide who is correct when groups of scientists disagree

“…High school students had difficulty grappling with researcher disagreements portrayed in a narrative about juvenile thyroid cancer incidence after the 2011 Fukushima Daiichi nuclear incident, although simultaneously they largely granted that disputes were a basic property of science (Hamza et al, 2022). Although concerns about alleged declines in trust in science may be overwrought-for example, see O'Neill (2002) on general problems with alleged declines in trust, and Gundersen et al (2022) on the validity of questioning scientific claims-the potential for intrascientific disputes to produce undesirable societal outcomes demands attention from risk communicators.…”

“…Although concerns about alleged declines in trust in science may be overwrought—for example, see O'Neill (2002) on general problems with alleged declines in trust, and Gundersen et al. (2022) on the validity of questioning scientific claims—the potential for intrascientific disputes to produce undesirable societal outcomes demands attention from risk communicators.…”

“…One heuristic cue from the HSM literature is that “consensus implies correctness” (Eagly & Chaiken, 1993, p. 327). There are several problematic aspects to these claims about scientific epistemology (e.g., consensus could reflect “group think and power”; see Coady, 2006; Goldman, 2001; Gundersen et al., 2022), although it has been argued that uninformed observers can estimate a weighted average of better than random opinions (Lehrer & Wagner, 1981, p. 20).…”