This article has been reviewed according to Science X's editorial process and policies. Editors have highlighted the following attributes while ensuring the content's credibility: A study of more than 6,000 people in the U.K. and Sweden suggests that although scientists are generally regarded as credible, their status as experts is more contested when they discuss issues such as health, education and employment. Researchers from The University of Manchester and KTH Royal Institute of Technology in Sweden found that scientists were perceived as more credible than government officials, but were no more credible—and in some circumstances less credible—than businesspeople and advocates.
The findings challenge the assumption that scientific expertise automatically gives academics greater credibility when they contribute to wider public debates. The paper is published in the journal Research Policy. The researchers wanted to examine whether people actually regard scientists as more credible than other groups when presented with the same claims about society.
Rather than simply asking people whether they trust science, the study used a survey experiment in which participants were asked to assess statements attributed to different types of experts. These included an academic scientist, businessperson, government official or issue advocate. The statements covered technological and nontechnological issues, allowing the researchers to examine whether the identity of the person making a claim affected how convincing it appeared.
The study involved nationally representative samples of adults in the U.K. and Sweden. Data was collected online, with 6,198 complete responses ultimately included in the analysis. Each participant assessed eight different combinations of statements and expert types.
The researchers found a clear difference depending on what scientists were talking about. When discussing the societal consequences of technological developments, scientists' credibility increased relative to other expert groups. But when the same set of experts was discussing nontechnological social issues such as health, education or employment, businesspeople and issue advocates were perceived as more credible than scientists.
The researchers suggest this may reflect the different ways people understand scientific expertise. Technology-related questions may be seen as areas where scientists possess particularly relevant specialist knowledge. Wider social questions, by contrast, can involve competing values, political judgments and forms of knowledge outside academia.
Extract — continue reading at the source.
