"Trust in science is collapsing"—that's the alarm we often hear. It's not surprising, then, that recent years have seen major efforts to study the phenomenon and its dynamics in the general population. Far less attention, however, has been paid to the information professionals—journalists—who play a crucial bridging role between the world of scientific research and the public. A new paper in the Journal of Science Communication (JCOM) by a research group at the Institute for Technology Assessment and Systems Analysis (ITAS) of the Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT), Germany, gives voice to journalists in three countries—Germany, Italy, and Lithuania—each representing a different media ecosystem.
The picture that emerges is far more fragmented and nuanced—and, above all, strongly context-dependent—than the common narrative would suggest. The journalists described themselves as being in constant negotiation with their audiences, calling themselves "knowledge brokers." They also stressed that, in today's science journalism, fact-checking and accuracy must be coupled with political, social, and emotional dimensions and with audience expectations, and they highlighted the need for new co-creative media formats.
"According to the journalists involved in our study, trust in science is not collapsing," explains Nora Weinberger, a researcher at ITAS and one of the authors of the study, who contributed to the analysis of the focus-group data (that were all pre-analyzed locally). "That was kind of a surprise for me, because in the media and in discussions among researchers there's this idea of a collapse, while participants in our study see trust as being constantly negotiated."
"Public trust in science is not uniformly declining," confirms Dana Mahr, also a researcher at ITAS and the study's first author. "It's fragmented, dynamic, and highly dependent on social, political, and media contexts, as well as individual expectations."
The focus-group study involved 87 participants—mostly journalists (also including a number of science and institutional communicators and a few scientists)—across three very different countries. Germany shows a relatively solid landscape for science journalism, with dedicated desks in public broadcasters and major outlets, a strong professional network, and good fact-checking practices. Italy is more fragmented, with fewer pure science desks, many freelancers, and often poorly paid. As described by one Italian participant: "Science journalism in Italy is treated as a luxury. When there's a crisis, it suddenly matters. Otherwise, it's ignored." Lithuania, shaped by its post-communist past, has a very small market with few full-time specialists; science is often covered by generalists or in collaboration with universities and research centers.
Context effects and fragmentation
Journalists highlighted the public's growing ideological polarization: some continue to trust scientific institutions, while others assess information through an emotional and political lens. As one German participant put it: "People don't evaluate scientific facts independently anymore. They trust or reject science based on whether it aligns with their political identity."
They also criticized a reactive form of journalism that works on a very short time horizon and often depends on contingencies and public mood. In practice, topics are covered mainly in emergencies (think of the pandemic), while in-depth, long-term reporting is rare. This dynamic, by reducing the public's familiarity with scientific issues, ends up triggering a vicious circle that further undermines trust in scientific research.
Online sets the agenda
Another key point is that dynamics of the online sphere spill over offline, shaping what appears in print. "The same article gets published in print and online, and if it gets no clicks online, then the topic doesn't come up next time in the editorial discussions with regard to the print," explains Mahr.
This further restricts in-depth coverage of important topics — from vaccines to climate change: if a subject doesn't draw online interest, it stops being covered. Mahr cites global warming: although it's scientifically crucial, it no longer attracts audiences unless framed with sensational headlines (often misleading, sometimes not evidence-based), and is gradually sidelined by outlets. "The journalists in our focus groups expressed the idea that basically you cannot do journalism on climate change because the public is overladen with information. Basically they are tired of the topic of climate change." This, in turn, creates space for "alternative information" (not evidence-based and driven by a specific political agenda), which spreads pseudoscientific misinformation.
The role of support structures
