Trust in Science

Trust in science should mean neither uncritical deference nor sweeping skepticism, but a calibrated, reflective stance. To illustrate what this stance requires, I examine two contrasting, context-specific cases. Commercial DNA ancestry tests illustrate gullibility, as probabilistic estimates are often marketed and interpreted as precise revelations of identity, even though genetic ancestry captures only a limited subset of genealogical ancestry. By contrast, vaccine–autism debates illustrate mistrust: despite extensive evidence against a causal link, political identity, conspiracist ideation, and misleading public discourse sustain doubt and confuse absence of evidence for a link with lack of grounds to reject it. I argue that appropriate trust in science lies in the reliability of scientific methods, communities, and institutions over time. Science education should therefore help students understand how scientific knowledge is produced, evaluated, and used.