The rise in the distrust of science and technology

The distrust in science and technology is not new, but more and more it's difficult to turn a blind eye to. In a Pew Research Center report in 2023, it was mentioned that Americans' trust in science and scientists dropped drastically since the COVID-19 pandemic began. The percentage of United States adults who say that science has a "mostly positive" impact on society fell to 57%, 8 percentage points below where it was in 2021 and a staggering 16 percentage points below what it was pre-pandemic. This decline is more than a loss of confidence; it signals an underlying shift in the culture and society in the way citizens perceive knowledge and authority. (Viswanathan)

Once hailed as the bastion of truth and progress, science is now met with fatigue, scepticism, or outright hostility. In medicine and climate science, in artificial intelligence and economics, there are fewer seekers of experts' opinions. The causes are many, ranging from pandemic misinformation and political polarisation to the sheer pace with which technology reconstitutes daily life. What used to unite people around common understanding is presently dividing them, and that growing distrust may redefine how we participate in innovation, policy, and even in truth itself.

Historical trust vs. modern distrust

Since the dawn of the Industrial Revolution in the late eighteenth century, science and technology have shaped change. Improvements in energy, communications, medicine, and engineering transformed how people lived, extended lifespans, improved education, and constructed modern economies. From electricity to the internet, these technologies have supported modern civilisation.

With every new technology, the way humans interact with the world has been altered. The shift from agricultural to industrial society, for example, revolutionized work, family, and even the self. Philosopher Karl Marx considered technology as something that organized human relationships, and W. F. Ogburn wrote that social mores consistently fall behind technological innovation, and therefore, society is constantly playing catch-up. (Tegegn)

Science and technology were approached with reverence for most of history. They symbolized progress, knowledge, and human advancement. But now, that narrative is not working. Globalisation, misinformation, and increasing ideological fractures have eroded the public's confidence in scientific organisations. Even the United Nations has taken notice. In 2020, UN Secretary-General António Guterres issued a warning that "deep and growing global mistrust" was one of the key challenges of our time, challenging leaders to rekindle trust in science and evidence-based policy.

The move from historical trust to modern scepticism is more than a change of attitude; it is a modification in the manner in which individuals approach progress itself. Science still yields results, but the world on which it acts has progressed faster than our ability to understand or to trust it. (Trench)

Why people are losing trust

Research shows that science opposers or distrusters are not actually highly educated, but they believe so. Five years of surveys show that overconfidence is the primary reason for scepticism associated with vaccines, GM foods, and even basic scientific principles.

In other cases, science sceptics also believe that what they hold as commonplace is more so, lending it legitimacy. This "false consensus" effect creates echo chambers for misinformation to thrive. For some, anti-science is emotionally reassuring. Other arguments, like conspiracy theories of microchips in the vaccine or 5G as the culprit for COVID-19, fill in for certainty where there is uncertainty.

The issue is communication. Science operates on falsifiability, refuting ideas that are discreditable, while conspiracy theories are predicated on ideas that are not discreditable. When a scientist debates against an individual who is not trusting of the scientific process, they are operating with a completely different set of rules. Logical proof has no opportunity when distrust is built upon identity, ideology, or emotion. (Hurst)

Finding solutions

If distrust in science is growing, how can it be addressed? Research suggests that who delivers the message is just as important as what the message is. Politicians are often seen as untrustworthy messengers, whereas university professors and independent researchers are viewed as more credible.

Another effective strategy is to build scientific consensus in an obvious manner. Studies show that when people are told that the majority of experts hold a view, like the reality of climate change, their likelihood of holding the view increases. Not only does this eliminate misinformation but eliminates the illusion that contrary opinions are standard.

Education is also important. Rather than disabusing people of myths, scientists now move to prebunking, getting people ready to recognize manipulation tactics before being exposed to them. By warning the public about possible misinformation ahead of time, it is harder for misinformation to take root.

Finally, accepting uncertainty is crucial, especially with new research fields like AI or pandemic research. People lose trust when scientists "change their minds," but science evolves with evidence. Emphasizing this process, that revision is a virtue, not a vice, can regain credibility. (Hurst)

Rebuilding trust in the age of uncertainty

The distrust of science and technology is not just a crisis of knowledge but of relationship. In an era where anyone can host an opinion on the web, expertise has been democratized, yet also watered down. Trust will not be recovered solely by facts; it requires empathy, openness, and conversation which can heal the breach between the public and the experts.

The truth is, science has never been anything but human, flawed, iterative, and self-correcting. What's changed is not its purpose, but our relationship with it. Taking back that relationship means making science less about authority and more about co-production, about mutual seeking of knowledge in a world where truth cannot be elective.