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

A great deal of trust (26%) – "Disruptors can publish as many fake papers as they like, just like 24-hour news networks can flood the airwaves with rush, unsubstantiated reports and claims. It doesn't mean I don't trust the real scientists, and it doesn't mean I don't trust the real journalists."

• "Because I’m a member of the scientific community. And like any community it is made up of human beings whose actions are driven by human behavior…a few people are bad but most of them are good and are scientists because they’re passionate about science. And that passion is what drives them to do good science. However, I’m again disappointed in the DONUT for framing a survey question in such a way that emphasizes and exacerbates the public’s distrust of subject matter experts (i.e. people who participate in scientific activities for a living). Predatory publishing has been an issue for several years…it’s not new. And the scientific process actually eliminates crappy science…if a result isn’t reproducible, it’s not real."

"I have high confidence in the actual academic scientists who are doing great work, and following proper peer review procedures. My faith in the institutions supporting them is wavering a bit--universities buckling under funding assaults, and journals and the publishing industry that helps vet and disburse scientific knowledge having their editorial integrity eroded by the challenges of lazy/fraudulent/deliberately distorted research becoming harder to identify due to technologies, including generative AI."

An average amount of trust (36%) – "I’ve been and left academia but like every field, there are good and bad apples. More has to be done to properly fix publishing but many journals are still highly esteemed and have strict publishing features. It’s not safe to generalize. I do hope the field gets better and true information is shared since there’s already enough fake news and incorrect info being spread by people and AIs."

• "My trust in science has declined primarily because of the problem of false papers and predatory journals. Publish or perish has led to something dangerous to the scientific community and the public that relies on them; this problem lends fuel to climate deniers, vaccine skeptics, and people who think renewable energy is a scam. A rightful lack of faith in the intelligentsia does not a strong society make."

"I trust the scientific process, and I also trust experts to have a way more comprehensively accurate understanding of a topic than I do. But if you can't explain the basics to me in a way that make sense, if you can't transparently show and easily explain the process you've used to make sure it's reliable, I will treat your study as indicative at best. To put it simply, I do not see a scientific study as proving a claim, I only see it as a small piece of evidence towards a claim, and if I don't see a consensus in the scientific community over many years and research papers, I will hold to some level of doubt. And also, part of good science is always being willing to revisit your previously held beliefs - if new evidence starts to arise, I will give that due attention as well."

• "Ten years ago, I would have had a great deal of trust. I still trust peer-reviewed articles, but I have recognized that science is often imprecise, sloppy, or completely wrong. I really understood this during the pandemic, when people were pushing the vaccine for everyone, saying it was safe. I do think the risk outweighed the rewards for most, but Covid wasn't a risk to kids and young men, yet the mRNA vaccine was. Why did the scientific community still push it for that demographic? That's when I lost faith. Now, I think half of the scientific studies are junk. They're minimally investigated, include far too few data sets, and published before the topic is well-understood."

Little or no trust (25%) – "I’m in the medical community and my trust in our guidelines and literature has decreased significantly in recent years due to concerns about funding sources (like Pharma) and failures in the review process. Most concerning is that we clinicians are supposed to be relying on this pool of “evidence” to make decisions about patient care. I’m now much more likely to trust my own experience in practice and expert opinion than supposed “guidelines” which are often tainted by other parties."

• "Like seemingly everything in our society these days, science is increasingly motivated by politics and greed. Whenever I see or hear of a study on say, a vitamin or supplement, and they gave half of the participants the product and half a placebo, I’m always skeptical. Many times these studies fail to take into consideration exercise regimen, overall diet, sleep patterns, environmental factors, pre-existing conditions and a host of other things that could help or hinder the true results of the study. The COVID 19 pandemic is a prime example. Some said masking was of great importance, some said vaccination was clearly the best hope, while others scoffed at these claims. Some died, some became very ill, others thrived or were not affected. Here we are a few short years later and still not completely sure what we could have or should have done differently. There are very convincing arguments from many different perspectives. The only thing we know for sure is, many on both sides made a fortune. This is only one area. Technology, agriculture, climate, biodiversity, you name it, is being manipulated by political greed caused by preferred outcomes."

Unsure/other (13%) – "I dunno where to rank my trust for the scientific community. I'd like to trust it more, but in combination with a bunch of falsely advertised studies on the news as well as a bunch of top scientists being replaced with science skeptics, I guess I can't say that my trust in the community is that high. My faith in it is much higher than my trust."