How Can We Rebuild Trust in Science and Health? Start Small, Think Big

Rebuilding trust in science and health means reconnecting—through relationships, communities, and structural reform.

Trust is social—and rebuilding it starts with connection. (Image via Pixabay)

Trust in scientific and medical institutions has taken a serious hit in recent years. That erosion stems from a mix of factors: genuine missteps by institutions, persistent misinformation, and deep-rooted historical injustices. While rebuilding that trust won’t happen overnight, it’s possible. And it’s essential for maintaining a shared reality and helping the public access and act on the best available evidence.

In this post, I break down how trust can be rebuilt across three levels: the personal (micro), the community (meso), and the institutional (macro). Each level requires a different approach, but all work together toward a stronger foundation of public trust.

---

Micro Level: Warmth, Competence, and Embracing Uncertainty

Social science shows that trust is built on both competence and warmth. It's not enough for someone to appear knowledgeable—they also need to show they care. For many, mistrust in medicine doesn’t begin with a conspiracy theory; it begins in a clinical setting where they felt dismissed, rushed, or condescended to. Today, people may feel a deeper connection to a wellness influencer on TikTok who listens and responds to their concerns than to an impersonal, bureaucratic institution.

What could help:

• Empathy from health & science professionals: Listening and validating concerns, rather than rushing to correct them, can prevent people from falling into misinformed echo chambers. This builds the “warmth” side of trust.

• Embracing uncertainty: Research shows that scientists who acknowledge uncertainty (rather than overstate certainty) are seen as more trustworthy, especially when knowledge evolves.

• Speaking up in local networks: People trust those they know. When scientists share expertise with friends, family, and their own communities, it resonates more than broad institutional messaging. Shared identity helps here, like Dr. Katharine Hayhoe, a climate scientist who connects with faith-based audiences as an Evangelical Christian.

---

Meso Level: Building Trust Through Community Relationships

While one-on-one conversations matter, trust is also shaped in community networks—churches, barbershops, schools, and group chats. These meso-level structures shape how people perceive science and health because we trust people in our groups, not just distant experts.

Framing science as personally relevant and close to people's lives increases trust, credibility, and positive attitudes toward science. The goal is not just outreach, but genuine dialogue where both scientists and community members listen and learn.

What helps:

• Partnering with local leaders: Trusted community figures (pastors, teachers, barbers) make powerful messengers. Institutions should work with them—not around them—to meet people where they are.

• Supporting citizen science: Even in politically polarized contexts, participating in citizen science increases trust in science and in local authorities—thanks to transparency, collaboration, and shared goals.

• Scientists showing up locally: Engaging outreach efforts that avoid jargon and invite curiosity—like this recent event at a comedy club by Dr. Katelyn Jetelina aka“Your Local Epidemiologist”—help demystify science and make it feel more relevant to everyday life.

---

Macro Level: Institutional Reform and Scientific Transparency

At the macro level, trust depends on systemic integrity and transparency. Many people still believe in science, but they may distrust the institutions around it due to corporate influence, political failures, or longstanding inequities. Systemic reform is slow and has many moving parts, but there are concrete steps that institutions can take to demonstrate accountability and earn public trust over time.

What could help:

• Addressing conflicts of interest: Institutions should disclose financial ties, keep research and investment arms separate, and ensure independent oversight of decisions.

• Practicing open science & boosting transparency: There is a growing movement in science towards pre-registering studies, publishing null results, and making data publicly accessible. This helps show that science isn’t about cherry-picking. Institutions in general can work to improve their transparency and accountability.

• Improving diversity and inclusion: People are more likely to trust institutions when they see people like themselves represented in them. Diverse teams also produce better science.

• Acknowledging mistakes: Trust doesn’t come from pretending to be perfect. It comes from admitting imperfections—and showing how systems are improving.

---

The Path Forward

Rebuilding trust in science and medicine isn’t about one perfect fact-check or a viral PR campaign. It’s a relationship-building process that starts with listening and ends with meaningful change. From individual exam rooms to local community spaces to the institutions that shape public policy, we all have a role to play in making science more human, more honest, and more connected. If we can do that—together—we’ll be better prepared for the next crisis, whether it’s a pandemic or a wave of misinformation.