Overidealising science erodes public trust: Study

Image source: Unsplash

A scientist has called for a shift in how we teach and communicate science — arguing that public trust will only grow when people understand that science is flawed, messy, and still worth trusting.

Byron Hyde, philosopher of science and Honorary Research Associate at Bangor University, lays out the case in a new paper published in Theory & Society.

He explores what he calls the "transparency paradox": The idea that while openness is supposed to boost public trust, being too transparent—especially about errors or uncertainty—can actually reduce it.

Hyde’s study finds that transparency works best when the news is good. But when institutions reveal failed experiments or conflicts of interest, public trust tends to dip, not rise. 

One obvious—yet ethically problematic—response would be to hide the bad news altogether. But Hyde argues that’s neither sustainable nor honest.

Instead, he says the root of the problem lies in unrealistic public expectations. "Most people think that science is and ought to be a lot better than it is or is even capable of being," he writes. 

When science inevitably falls short of this ideal, trust breaks down—even when it's still functioning properly.

The solution, Hyde believes, lies in changing how science is taught. While most people learn scientific facts at school, they rarely learn how science itself works.

"For example, most people know that global temperatures are rising, but very few people know how we know that," he writes. "Not enough people know that science 'infers to the best explanation' and doesn't definitively 'prove' anything."

Hyde argues that teaching these ideas more clearly—from how scientists form conclusions to why bias is inevitable—can help rebuild trust, not by polishing science’s image, but by making it more accurate.

"Too many people think that scientists should be free from biases or conflicts of interest when, in fact, neither of these are possible," he says. "If we want the public to trust science to the extent that it’s trustworthy, we need to make sure they understand it first."