Opinion: Restoring public trust in science doesn’t have a simple solution. That’s OK

OpinionFirst Opinion Restoring public trust in science doesn’t have a simple solution. That’s OK A problem this complex demands a broad lens, humility, and silo-busting Manage alerts for this article Email this article Share this article By Michelle Groman and Caroline MontojoSept. 14, 2026 Groman is president and CEO of The Greenwall Foundation.

Montojo is president and CEO of the Dana Foundation. As presidents of two private foundations focused on the ethical dimensions of science, we attend many meetings where we hear concerns about declining public trust in science. Often, someone in the room will suggest that the solution to this problem is to “communicate better.” Others will lament that the problem is simply too big for us to solve.

The chasm between those responses is telling. We began to wonder whether scientists and the public have a shared understanding of what is meant by “trust” and its decline, what can be done to build it, and whether better messaging really is the magic answer.Advertisement In the numbers (which, indeed, still point to public trust in science and scientists as being reasonably high), we see polarization and public views deviating from the scientific consensus. But we must look at the problem beyond the latest headlines, surveys, and statistics, because not every change-in-trust survey is a verdict on science, and not every disagreement with scientific evidence is proof that trust has disappeared for good.

These issues are not confined to science and medicine. Trust in expertise, authority, and institutions are fragile as well. And it’s not simply trust — it’s about trustworthiness, too.

To chart a path forward, the scientific community must develop a broad understanding, one that considers the past and present and goes beyond the arenas of research and academia in which our organizations typically operate. That’s why the Dana Foundation and The Greenwall Foundation (with our partners, the John Templeton Foundation and Boston Foundation) have provided support for STAT’s new trust-in-science beat, which aims to provide on-the-ground insight into the problem and strengthen our understanding of it — ultimately helping to inform how we move forward.Advertisement But while this investigative work is critical, it is only one tack to take on the thorny issue of trust in science. Our foundations are supporting other projects that we hope will also deepen our understanding of the problem and generate more approaches to it.

In 2024, for example, the Dana Foundation partnered with University of California Los Angeles and Charles R. Drew University of Medicine and Science (CDU) for a grant program focused on community-partnered research. Scientists from these universities engaged in community listening sessions with South Los Angeles residents to understand their challenges and where they felt neuroscience could benefit their daily lives.

The researchers learned that parents were concerned by low-flying helicopter noise disrupting their children’s sleep and affecting their brain health. In response, scientists recorded local flight noise and replicated those exposure patterns in animal models. When the data revealed that the persistent noise impaired brain function, the research team presented their findings to the city council during deliberations over whether to expand the local helicopter fleet, leading the city council to pause their decision and request more research, which is now underway.

For many community members, this was a rare opportunity to engage with a scientist. One researcher summed up the dynamic between the groups, saying, “There were moments when ‘us versus them’ became ‘we.’ … There were other moments when the divide was palpable, and there were moments that we used our different vocabularies and perspectives to converge on shared human experiences.” The UCLA-CDU project shows us that trust does not come from one-way or top-down communication, but instead through ongoing engagement. When patients and the public have the opportunity to work with experts in the field to identify what research is needed, it can help legitimize the value of science and medicine while opening avenues for identifying shared goals for research and its outcomes in society.Advertisement It also tells us that trust moves in both directions.

Community members brought knowledge and experiences to the table that researchers could not have gained at a distance. Taking these perspectives seriously required researchers to extend trust, too — trust in their community partners and a sincere belief that knowledge from outside traditional research settings could improve their work. And finally, it shows us that trustworthiness requires continued and concerted effort.

In the UCLA-CDU example, researchers didn’t simply publish their findings and walk away. They shared those findings with community leaders and the city council, where they had a tangible impact on decision-making. And now, they’re embarking on the next chapter of their collaboration with South LA residents: understanding how music affects brain health and resilience.

Through the thoughtful design and execution of their project, researchers have built a strong relationship with the community that can continue to produce meaningful work for all involved. Our organizations continue to dig into the issue of trust in science. The Greenwall Foundation, for example, is funding research to better understand trust at various levels, including trust between patients and clinicians, trust in organizations, and public trust in regulators, among others.

And our organizations continue to support work that seeks to help build trust as well. We certainly don’t have all the answers, and academic research alone is not enough. What we can draw from our shared experience is that clear communication is valuable, but messaging can’t substitute for the relational infrastructure needed for building and sustaining trust.

While the UCLA-CDU project models a positive outcome, there’s no one-size-fits-all approach here. Trustworthiness is complex. A recent RAND Europe/Wellcome report, for example, mapped this complexity along five dimensions — expertise, benevolence, transparency, responsiveness, and integrity — operating at individual, institutional, and system levels.

Studies like this underscore the many interrelated factors and moving pieces that contribute to trustworthiness. We should be cognizant of them and how they work together in any relationship.Advertisement Trust in science is not a simple problem, and it doesn’t have a simple solution. We need buy-in from all stakeholders, including scientists, clinicians, patients, communities, communicators, institutional leadership, and public health practitioners.

A problem this complex demands that we approach it together — outside of silos, with a broad lens, and with humility. The scientific community often asks how it can persuade the public to trust science. A more useful set of questions might be specific: Who is being asked to trust whom?

What does trust require in the relationship at hand? What history is shaping the relationship? And perhaps most important of all: What must we do to be worthy of the public’s trust?

Our actions should reflect the answer to that question. Michelle Groman, J.D., is president and CEO of The Greenwall Foundation, a private foundation dedicated to making bioethics integral to decisions in health care, policy, and research. Caroline Montojo, Ph.D., is president and CEO of the Dana Foundation, a private foundation dedicated to advancing neuroscience that benefits society and reflects the aspirations of all people.

Letter to the editor Have an opinion on this essay? Submit a letter to the editor. advocacy, research Submit a correction requestReprints Michelle Groman Caroline Montojo Newsletter The smartest thinkers in life sciences on what's happening — and what's to come Recommended First Opinion September 14, 2026 Am I a hypocrite for loving football despite CTE?

First Opinion September 11, 2026 I’m a thoracic surgeon in New York City. For many of my patients, Sept. 11 is still not over Advertisement First Opinion September 11, 2026 I’m a public health communications consultant.

Pro-vaccine advocacy needs more fun First Opinion September 10, 2026 John Fetterman’s post-stroke, politically problematic behaviors offer lessons about brain health on Capitol Hill First Opinion September 9, 2026 AMA CEO: AI won’t replace doctors — it will work alongside them Subscriber Picks