How would you best describe your personal confidence in the scientific community?

👍 A great deal of trust (20%) – "I am a scientist and I can absolutely confirm we know this is happening and we regularly discuss how it affects our ability to do research and why it occurs. (As you mention it’s largely due to systemic issues in how funding and promotions are handled). That being said I would say even the acknowledgment by journals that it’s occurring is a reason to feel trust in science. We are driven to find the truth and not brush things under the rug. The entire principle of science is to change your belief/paradigm/outlook as new information comes along. Just like any job there are bad actors (eg doctors who knowingly perform malpractice, officers perpetuating violence against black people) but on the whole we are just nerds trying to learn more about the world and hopefully make it better."

• "Media are pushing the idea that scientists and published science cannot be trusted. The percentage of fake articles is tiny compared to the valuable knowledge and scientific advancements published by genuine scientists. The media should investigate the groups pushing fake articles and the journals profiting from it, they are the thieves of knowledge and scientific advancements, including cures for disease. We know nefarious actors want to diminish public trust in science, honest media should not be complicit in this atrocious undertaking. Time to step up to the plate and help the people that toil day and night to improve human health and wellbeing."

📈 A fair amount of trust (31%) – "Everything no matter how sacrosanct we think a subject is , it’s open up to fraud, so there’s no reason science is any different.. there always were and there always will be cheaters. And the layman has no real way of knowing. Perhaps I’m naïve, but I do believe MOST scientists are truth seekers. But it’s best not to believe wholeheartedly and to keep a bit of scepticism aside for further review."

• "I’d say I have a reasonable, but limited amount of trust, which honestly, you need for pretty much everything nowadays. With the internet having sites like WebMD which say pretty much any slight headache or stiff joint is gonna kill you, or some easy-to-find information being outdated or fuzzies by myths, it’s good to take things with a grain of salt. Other than that though, when I need scientific information, I only take it it from research that is generally agreed upon by qualified scientists, not just those who write lots of papers."

"While problems such as this makes it so you can't believe things with just a single source in the end the scientific community is just too competitive for fake ideas to become widespread. Every scientist wants the fame that comes from debunking fake ideas."

📉 Not too much trust (27%) – "My belief in research has diminished over the years. I'm not sure if it's because we now have more access to information or if there are more instances of unreliable research. I think some of my mistrust came during Covid. Though I am vaccinated and I did get the Covid vaccine, I think there was some suppression of negative side effects. I do still have some faith in peer-reviewed work, though."

• "Ever since watching Veritasiums YouTube video 'is most published research wrong?' several years ago I've grown increasingly skeptical of scientific research. Even scientists who legitimately try to conduct and publish legitimate research can still be impacted by bias and errors and lack of data. P-hacking is also a very real thing. And often the way even legitimate studies are described in the news is misleading and dramatized. Really, the more I learn, the more I understand that even scientific research still needs to be read through a lense of critical thinking and a dose of skepticism, just like anything else I might read in any other industry. Never take anything at face value, especially if you can't even take the time to read and understand the study's own abstract."

"When a scientist/researcher/professor's career/getting tenure/growing a reputation depends on getting published in scientist or professional journals they have only their personal integrity to keep them honest. The competition for grant money is fierce and then they have to PAY to get their work published -- and then by journals that don't peer review each submission. How can anyone expect any good coming out of this?"

👎 No trust at all (13%) – "Publish or perish is a formula for shoddy/nonexistent work. Also, funding exacerbates the problem with 'expected' outcomes or previous 'outcomes' especially if it's from businesses like drug companies or political organizations. I now never trust but instead, verify."

🤷 Unsure/other (9%) – "This is a tough topic for me. Having worked in a research field for a number of years, I know how easy it can be to fudge numbers, lose data points, or get data to tell the story you want it to tell. Scientists are smart people but I also believe that most of them are inherently good people who want what they believe is the best for the masses. That's really tough to judge from a name on a page and all it takes is one sick relative or political promise or potential tenure nomination or whatever it is to tip the scales in favor of publishing something they know isn't fully inaccurate, but isn't fully accurate either. There shouldn't be a ton of grey area or external influence when it comes to science but there's a lot more than people think there is."