The IANUS partners KIT and UNIROMA conducted media panels in Germany and Italy respectively to explore how journalists (mainly) perceive trust in science, since in an era of rapid digital transformation and increasing skepticism toward institutions, trust in science is facing unique challenges across different countries. A comparative analysis of perspectives from Germany and Italy reveals common concerns as well as distinct national approaches to science communication and public trust.
In Germany, trust in science has been shaped by broader political movements and media narratives. The journalist who participated in the panel highlights the growing influence of right-wing extremism in shifting societal views on science. She points to a rise in anti-science sentiment since 2014, exacerbated by alternative media, conspiracy theories, and political misuse of scientific discourse. The COVID-19 pandemic further blurred the lines between science and politics, where conflicting expert opinions led to confusion and distrust. She argues that media plays a crucial role in restoring trust by ensuring clarity and contextualization of scientific information. Another significant challenge in Germany is the emotionalization of discourse, particularly in politically charged topics like climate change and geopolitical conflicts. While scientific consensus exists, political agendas exploit skepticism to appeal to ideological biases, making it difficult for factual information to break through. Threats to journalists and scientists also reflect the intensity of these debates, highlighting the need for a more resilient and transparent science communication framework.
In contrast, discussions in Italy emphasize the structural and media-related aspects of science communication. The journalists who participated in the panel stress the evolving nature of public trust, influenced by the rise of social media and the decline of traditional gatekeepers of information. The shift toward disintermediation—where individuals can access and produce information freely—has contributed to both greater public engagement and increased misinformation. A major issue in Italy is the lack of dedicated scientific journalism training. Media experts argue that editorial offices are often ill-equipped to handle complex scientific topics, leading to inadequate dissemination. Transparency and clarity are identified as key factors in rebuilding trust, with a strong emphasis on adapting communication strategies to different audiences. Unlike Germany, where science skepticism is often politicized, Italian experts highlight cultural factors, such as a historical detachment from scientific discourse and a tendency to perceive scientists as distant intellectuals rather than relatable figures.
Both Germany and Italy recognize the growing skepticism toward science, driven by digital media’s influence, political interference, and public misinformation. However, while Germany’s challenges are deeply intertwined with political narratives and ideological conflicts, Italy’s concerns revolve around media literacy, structural inefficiencies, and the lack of a strong scientific journalism culture. A key takeaway from both perspectives is the importance of transparency, adaptability, and media responsibility in science communication. In Germany, the focus is on countering ideological biases and clarifying the role of science in political discourse. In Italy, improving journalistic standards and fostering a more inclusive approach to science communication are seen as crucial steps toward rebuilding public trust. As science continues to play a central role in addressing global challenges, these discussions underline the need for tailored strategies that consider both national contexts and broader societal trends in the evolving landscape of trust in science.
You can watch a related animation video that the IANUS team has developed to further summarize these important findings.