On February 5, 2025, the TRIANGEL Transfer | Kultur | Raum in Karlsruhe hosted an interactive workshop titled “Sag mal, ITAS – What Happens When We Trust Scientists – or Don’t?” The event was organized and moderated by Dana Mahr (ITAS, KIT) and Meike Hebich (ITAS, KIT).
A key feature of the workshop was the “Who Do You Trust?” Barometer, where participants (ca. 18 individuals) used a sticker-based voting system to express their level of trust in different science communicators. The aim was to explore which professions in science communication are perceived as trustworthy – and which are not.
The results revealed distinct trust patterns:
High Trust was given to individuals associated with traditional media and established institutions, including weather presenters, science journalists (TV, radio, print) and news anchors, medical doctors, fact-checkers, science teachers, scientists featured in documentaries and even authors of popular science books and science-focused podcasters.
Mixed Trust was recorded for press officers at research institutes while Low Trust was observed for political and digital influencers, including science advisors to policymakers, science-focused social media influencers, ministers of science and education and YouTube/TikTok science creators.
During the workshop, IANUS partner Dana Mahr presented a talk titled “Do You Trust Me? Science in Times of Digital Uncertainty.” The discussion highlighted key factors influencing trust in science communication. For example, established media channels still hold credibility, as they are seen as vetted and reliable, while political and social media figures face skepticism, often due to perceived bias, manipulation, or conflicting interests. Mahr observed how trust thrives in personal interactions: professionals like teachers, doctors, and fact-checkers benefit from direct engagement with the public.
Dana Mahr also emphasized that trust is not a fixed state but a dynamic process that can be built or lost over time. She explored how digital platforms, misinformation, and shifting public perceptions create challenges for science communicators. Using digital health platforms as an example, she showed how transparency and control play a crucial role in shaping trust in scientific information.
The findings from the workshop underline the need for transparency, engagement, and participation in science communication. In an era of digital uncertainty, clear, accessible, and interactive communication strategies are essential to counter misinformation and maintain public trust in scientific expertise.