Bridging the Gap Between Science and the Public

Two weeks before the 2024 presidential election, Academy members convened in Cambridge for a compelling discussion about trust in science that featured Naomi Oreskes and Sean Decatur in conversation with Holden Thorp. The event, titled Rebuilding Trust in Science: A Morton L. Mandel Conversation, featured in this Bulletin issue on pages 60–77, took stock of the shifting terrain of science communication since the Academy’s Public Face of Science project. The panelists tackled a landscape marked by growing acceptance of climate change, deepening skepticism of the medical community, and the relentless churn of misinformation. They explored how scientists, journalists, institutional leaders, and others can cut through division and engage the public more meaningfully. With polarization and politicization eroding public trust in science, the stakes could not be higher. The event also featured Shirley Malcom and Cristine Russell, who bookended the discussion, as well as a vibrant exchange with the audience, leaving no doubt that rebuilding trust is urgent and complex. On the following day, twentytwo participants, spanning the fields of science, technology, journalism, museum education, and law, attended the related exploratory meeting, Bridging the Gap Between Science and the Public, co-chaired by Thorp and Russell. The meeting opened with participants facing an uncomfortable truth: Trust in science is not a universal concept. It depends on who you ask, what you are asking about, and where you are asking. The room buzzed with a shared understanding that the science engagement landscape had shifted–traditional media, once the gatekeeper of scientific knowledge, had given way to a cacophony of influencers, content creators, and conspiracy theorists. The challenge was not just about reaching people but cutting through the noise and making them care. The conclusion was blunt: Transparency is nonnegotiable. “If science is going to regain trust, we need to show people how the sausage gets made,” Thorp argued, underscoring the importance of explaining how scientific conclusions evolve. But the participants also acknowledged the underlying paradox. While admitting uncertainty can build credibility, it is also a gamble–one misstep and the critics pounce, branding scientists as indecisive or, worse, deceitful