Policy Recommendations for Promoting Trust in Science through Integrity, Integration, and Communication
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.7146/cfasr.v16i5.167069Nøgleord:
Trust in Science, Research Integrity, Science Communication, Public Engagement With ScienceResumé
This report contains the POIESIS Final Policy Recommendations for Promoting Trust in Science through Integrity, Integration, and Communication. POIESIS provides a set of nine recommendations that highlight how European and national policymakers, research performing organisations, research funding organisations, researchers, and mediators can work to maintain trust in science and address current and future challenges. These recommendations address the three core areas of research integrity, societal integration in science, and science mediation, and build directly on the findings of the POIESIS project to provide robust empirically founded recommendations.
Referencer
Allea (2023). The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity, https://allea.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/European-Code-of-Conduct-Revised-Edition-2023.pdf
Bauer, M. W., Shukla, R., & Allum, N. (Eds.). (2012). The culture of science: How the public relates to science across the globe. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203813621
Blöbaum, B. (2016). Key factors in the process of trust. On the analysis of trust under digital conditions. In Trust and communication in a digitized world: Models and concepts of trust research (pp. 3-25). Cham: Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-28059-2_1
Bouter, L. M., et al. (2016). Ranking major and minor research misbehaviors: Results from a survey among participants of four World Conferences on Research Integrity. Research Integrity and Peer Review. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-016-0024-5
Brossard, D., & Scheufele, D. A. (2022). The chronic growing pains of communicating science online. Sci-ence, 375(6581), 613-614. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abo0668
Bucchi, M., & Trench, B. (2021). Introduction: Science communication as the so-cial conversation around science. In Routledge handbook of public communication of science and technology (pp. 1-13). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003039242
Burgess, M. (2014). "From 'trust us' to participatory governance: Deliberative publics and science policy". Public Understanding of Science, 23:1, pp.48-52 https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662512472160
Chinn, S., Lane, D. S., & Hart, P. S. (2018). In consensus we trust? Persuasive effects of scientific consensus communication. Public Understanding of Science, 27(7), 807-823. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662518791094
Dubois et al. (2025 forthcoming). The Role of Institutions in Cultivating Trust in Science: A Qualitative Approach on a European Scale. In, Iordanou, K. Ravn, T. and Zwart, H. (eds), Trust in Science. Springer Nature. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-032-15723-2_8
European Commission: Directorate-General for Research and Innovation and Schomberg, R. v., Trust as a governance challenge for science-for-policy ecosystems - Mutual learning exercise on bridging the gap between science and policy - Fourth thematic report, Schomberg, R. v.(editor), Publications Office of the European Union, 2025, https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2777/6569914
Godecharle, S., B. Nemery & K. Dierickx (2013): "Guidance on research integrity: no union in Europe. The Lancet. 381, pp. 1097-1098 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(13)60759-X
Hendriks, F., Kienhues, D., & Bromme, R. (2016). Trust in science and the science of trust. In Trust and communication in a digitized world: Models and concepts of trust research (pp. 143-159). Cham: Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-28059-2_8
Humm, C., & Schrögel, P. (2020). Science for all? Practical recommendations on reaching underserved audi-ences. Frontiers in Communication, 5, 42. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomm.2020.00042
Jensen, K.K. (2017). "General Introduction to Responsible Conduct of Research", in RCR - A Dan-ish textbook for courses in Responsible Conduct of Research, Jensen K.K., Whiteley, L. and Sandøe, P. (eds.), 2nd edition April 2017
Krause, N. M., Freiling, I., & Scheufele, D. A. (2022). The "infodemic" infodemic: Toward a more nuanced understanding of truth-claims and the need for (not) combatting misinformation. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 700(1), 112-123. https://doi.org/10.1177/00027162221086263
Losi, L. (2023). Who engages with science, and how? An empirical typology of Europeans' science engage-ment. Public Understanding of Science, 32(6), 798-814. https://doi.org/10.1177/09636625231164340
M. M. (2014). From 'trust us' to participatory governance: deliberative publics and science policy. Pub-lic understanding of science, 23(1), 48-52. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662512472160
Mejlgaard, N. 2009. "The Trajectory of Scientific Citizenship in Den-mark: Changing Balances between Public Competence and Public Participation." Science and Public Policy, 36 (6): 483-496 https://doi.org/10.3152/030234209X460962
Mejlgaard, N., Bouter, L. M., Gaskell, G., Kavouras, P., Allum, N., Bendtsen, A. K., ... & Veltri, G. A. (2020). Research integrity: nine ways to move from talk to walk. Nature, 586(7829), 358-360. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-020-02847-8
Nature Editorial (2024). Making the most of trust in scientists, Nature, Vol 626, 1 February 2024
O'Doherty, K. C. (2023). Trust, trustworthiness, and relationships: Ontological reflections on public trust in science. Journal of Responsible Innovation, 10(1), 2091311. https://doi.org/10.1080/23299460.2022.2091311
Pateman, R. M., Dyke, A., & West, S. E. (2021). The diversity of participants in environmental citizen science. Citizen Science: Theory and Practice. https://doi.org/10.5334/cstp.369
Phillips, D. (2015). Francis Bacon and the Germans: Stories from when 'science' meant 'Wissenschaft'. History of Science, 53(4), 378-394. https://doi.org/10.1177/0073275315597609
Ravn, T., Sørensen, M.P. Exploring the Gray Area: Similarities and Differences in Questionable Research Practices (QRPs) Across Main Areas of Research. Sci Eng Ethics 27, 40 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-021-00310-z
Safavi, B. (2015). Science journalism Prospects in the Digital Age. Popularization of Science, 5(2), 39-62. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203483794
Scharfbillig, M., Allegra, A., Brossard, D., Cassio, L. G., Cologna, V. et al., Trust in science for policy Nexus, Publications Office of the European Union, 2025, https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2760/6212198; Edelman Trust Institute, 2024 .
Scheufele, D. A., & Krause, N. M. (2019). Science audiences, misinformation, and fake news. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 116(16), 7662-7669. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1805871115
Schnurbus, V., & Edvardsson, I. R. (2022). The third mission among Nordic universities: A systematic literature review. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 66(2), 238-260. https://doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2020.1816577
Schäfer, M. S. (2023). The Notorious GPT: science communication in the age of artificial intelligence. JCOM: Journal of Science Communication, 22(2), Y02. https://doi.org/10.22323/2.22020402
Steneck, N. H. (2006). Fostering integrity in research: Definitions, current knowledge, and future directions. Science and Engineering Ethics, 12(1), 53-74 https://doi.org/10.1007/PL00022268
Stilgoe, J., Lock, S. J., & Wilsdon, J. (2014). Why should we promote public engagement with science?. Public understanding of science, 23(1), 4-15. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662513518154
Stirling, Andy. 2008. 'Opening up' and 'Closing Down': Power, Participation, and Pluralism in the Social Appraisal of Technology. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 33 (2): 262-294 https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243907311265
UN (2024). United Nations Global Principles For Information Integrity. Recommendations for Multi-stake-holder Action. https://www.un.org/en/information-integrity/global-principles
Uttenthal, M. (2024). A conceptual analysis of trust. Social Science Information, 63(3), 392-410. https://doi.org/10.1177/05390184241270835
Weingart, P., Joubert, M., & Connoway, K. (2021). Public engagement with science - Origins, motives and impact in academic literature and science policy. PloS one, 16(7), e0254201. https://doi.org/10.1371/jour-nal.pone.0254201
Wynne, B. (1992). Misunderstood misunderstanding: social identities and public uptake of science. Pub-lic understanding of science, 1(3), 281. https://doi.org/10.1088/0963-6625/1/3/004
Downloads
Publiceret
Citation/Eksport
Nummer
Sektion
Kategorier
Licens
Copyright (c) 2026 CFA Scientific Reports
Dette værk er under følgende licens Creative Commons Navngivelse –Ikke-kommerciel (by-nc).
License terms apply for all publications unless specifically stated otherwise on the publication.
