What's Really Happening With Trust in Science

Science is in the spotlight this week — and not just for one reason. A powerful new telescope in Chile just began scanning the entire sky. A news investigation also raised serious questions about whether an oil company quietly shaped an important climate study from over two decades ago. Together, these stories show how science touches nearly every part of our lives — and why it matters who we trust to do it.

The Vera C. Rubin Observatory sits high in the mountains of Chile and officially began a 10-year mission to photograph the sky in more detail than ever before. Every night, its giant camera will sweep across the sky and collect enormous amounts of information. In just its first year, it will produce more data than all other optical telescopes in history — combined. Scientists say the telescope will become even more useful as the years go on and the data builds up.

A science journal called Biology Open tried something new in July 2024 — it began paying scientists to review other researchers' work, but only if they finished quickly and did a good job. Peer review is the process where experts read and judge each other's studies before they are published. The experiment worked well: reviews came back faster, and their quality improved. This matters because slow or careless reviews can delay important discoveries from reaching the public.

Many headlines suggest that trust in science has fallen apart, but the real picture is more complicated. Around the world, most people still say they trust science and scientists. Trust has dropped among certain groups, though, especially among Republican-leaning people in the United States and right-leaning people in the United Kingdom. Scientists say part of the problem is that false information spreads quickly online, making it hard for people to find accurate facts on topics like vaccines.

A news organization called ProPublica investigated a well-known climate study from 2004 that described a plan using existing technology to slow down climate change. However, ProPublica found that the study was funded by BP, a major oil company, and that BP helped shape much of its content. Critics say the study put too much attention on carbon capture and storage — trapping carbon dioxide underground — which has never been fully proven to work at a large scale. The study's authors and a former BP executive both deny that the company controlled the scientific conclusions, but the investigation raises important questions about who pays for science and how that might affect the results.