It’s not just about trust—influence is how you win hearts and minds

New research from Nature indicates that the problem isn’t trust in science, but scientists’ lack of influence. I agree—but why is the burden always on individual scientists?

4th June 2025

As regular readers of my newsletters know, I love a good turn of phrase. With trust top of mind—particularly with everything going on in the US—I’ve been thinking over this one a lot recently: “Innovation travels at the speed of trust.” (courtesy of Stephen M.R. Covey)

I love this phrase because it expresses a real truth, and one that I’ve observed time and time again. Trust is the foundation of all change. It’s the basis for all relationships. Without trust, nothing gets done. 

This is particularly true for the research and innovation sector, which is the source of new ideas, inventions and innovations that fuel economic, medical, social, cultural, and environmental benefits. 

Yet new ideas and change can also be frightening—particularly in areas like health, medicine and food, which are a unique combination of personal, political and emotionally-charged.

Everyone wants to avoid what happened with Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs). 

As I mentioned in my newsletter last week, GMOs are probably one of the most famous cautionary tales of research communications. Public perception was heavily influenced by misinformation, sensationalist media coverage and rumors that amplified fears about health risks, environmental impacts, and ethical concerns.

The result was a polarised and enduring debate, with lasting impacts on public trust, regulatory policy, and the market acceptance of new food technologies. 

The research sector has clearly learned from this debacle and in the case of potentially controversial technologies and innovations, there’s been a concerted effort to avoid these outcomes. 

Still, often it’s framed as an example of mistrust in science—similarly to how we think of trends like vaccine denial today. But is this actually the case? 

An interesting nuance—the problem with anti-science thinking isn’t trust alone

I came across this Nature article, “Science’s big problem is a loss of influence, not a loss of trust” recently through the Edelman Trust Institute’s newsletter (which I highly recommend). 

It talked about a phenomenon that I’ve repeatedly shared in this newsletter: that reports of the death of trust in science have been highly exaggerated. To quote the article: ‘science denialism’, however, is misleading and wrongly suggests that the solution is to build greater trust between scientists and the public.

This is what I’ve been saying: the problem is actually a lack of trust in public institutions, not in science and scientists.

The article goes on to share that a major problem is misplaced trust in untrustworthy sources. And they argue that the problem is that science and research communication is not influential enough to outweigh untrustworthy sources.

So it’s not about trust: it’s about influence. 

It makes sense when you think about it. Very few people would ever say that they don’t trust science. No matter their beliefs or actions, everyone believes that they are acting rationally. Anti-vaxxers believe they are following the ‘real’ science. 

The problem is not that people don’t trust scientists—it’s that they trust other sources just as much, or more. In many countries surveyed, more people trust their family members than they do scientists. And a whopping 39% of people surveyed trust celebrities on technology and innovation.

And whether it’s the opinion of a loved one, or a powerful celebrity, scientists simply can’t compete. 

But is there too much focus on individual scientists instead of the research sector?

The article argues that the challenge is for scientists to stand above the fray and communicate in a more influential way. It provides guidance on how to do so—like working with community or religious leaders to disseminate scientific information. 

These are good ideas. But more importantly, it’s yet another example of always putting the communications burden on scientists—who are usually time- and resource-poor. Where are they supposed to find the time to conduct research, teach, mentor students, apply for grants and funding, and now apparently go do outreach and equip community leaders with a research communications playbook? One that they’re supposed to create themselves? 

Can we get real for a second?

Let’s say someone trusts RFK Jr.—a man with an incredible platform, a reported net worth of $30M, and who has funded significant amounts of antivax advertisement. Imagine how many people he has directly and indirectly influenced. How is it reasonable or realistic in any way to expect individual scientists to compete with that? 

Yes, the recommendations are themselves good. But it’s the same-old same-old thinking. Where’s the strategy? Where are research institutions in all this? 

Imagine if every university that developed a vaccine invested just as much in local and national vaccine outreach—I bet we would see a measurable difference in vaccine uptake. Instead, communications are often piecemeal and outsourced to the media, where there’s no guarantee of cut-through. Hundreds of ads easily outweigh the impact of one press piece.

We simply can’t keep putting the communications burden on individual scientists. That’s already the way that we do things, and it isn’t working. The research sector must invest in influential and effective communications. And unlike individual scientists, it must also invest in building trust.

Most importantly, the approach must be consistent, aligned, and cross-sector. Otherwise, there’s no way to compete with the deep pockets and connections of people who have much to profit from misinformation. 

Rebuilding trust in the research sector

Just as there’s often an assumption that the value of good research speaks for itself, I often see an assumption that the credibility of scientists will speak for itself. 

But that doesn’t take into account the world we’re living in now—where people can access infinite information confirming almost any bias possible. Where the spreaders of misinformation have deep pockets, sophisticated networks, and global platforms. 

It’s another example of how the research sector has failed to evolve into the Internet era—with the exclusive exception (it seems!) of Harvard and its website. Expecting an individual scientist to effectively compete with the likes of Joe Rogan and Alex Jones is just not realistic. Yet we keep coming back to this solution—asking scientists to somehow find the time to do more and more. 

To get the cut-through it needs, the research sector needs a complete rethink. It must rebuild trust in itself. And it must invest in influential communications strategies that can not only compete but actually win in the 21st century.