Periodic Reporting for period 2 - IANUS (INspiring and ANchoring TrUst in Science)
Période du rapport: 2023-06-01 au 2025-05-31
In an era marked by climate change and global crises, trust in science became a central concern across Europe and beyond. While surveys like the Eurobarometer show high levels of public trust in science, scepticism and distrust grew more vocal as well, particularly during the COVID-19 crisis.
Social media facilitated polarized and accusatory narratives, reshaping the structure of the public sphere.
Against this backdrop, the European Commission awarded three projects—IANUS, POIESIS, and VERITY to address the issues related to trust in science, through three different approaches. IANUS’s unique approach was combining a strong conceptual framework, with interactive, co-creative engagement and historical awareness. From the outset, we emphasized that fostering trust in science should not imply promotional communication addressing a public “trust deficit.” Rather, we see healthy scepticism as vital to both scientific integrity and public debate.
IANUS encourages a participatory turn in research and innovation, e.g. openness to critical reflection, responsiveness to societal priorities, values and concerns, and inclusion of diverse perspectives. Trust in science must be earned through transparent, interactive, and value-sensitive inquiry - not through top-down promotional discourse. Scientific trustworthiness stems from a readiness to engage with critique and societal concerns
Social media facilitated polarized and accusatory narratives, reshaping the structure of the public sphere.
Against this backdrop, the European Commission awarded three projects—IANUS, POIESIS, and VERITY to address the issues related to trust in science, through three different approaches. IANUS’s unique approach was combining a strong conceptual framework, with interactive, co-creative engagement and historical awareness. From the outset, we emphasized that fostering trust in science should not imply promotional communication addressing a public “trust deficit.” Rather, we see healthy scepticism as vital to both scientific integrity and public debate.
IANUS encourages a participatory turn in research and innovation, e.g. openness to critical reflection, responsiveness to societal priorities, values and concerns, and inclusion of diverse perspectives. Trust in science must be earned through transparent, interactive, and value-sensitive inquiry - not through top-down promotional discourse. Scientific trustworthiness stems from a readiness to engage with critique and societal concerns
IANUS endorses the conviction that trust can never be taken for granted. It must be cultivated thoughtfully, especially in a democratic context where scepticism has a legitimate place. Our conceptual work unpacked the ambiguities of trust and the legitimacy of informed distrust. We emphasized the need for researchers to engage with scepticism constructively—as a source of insight rather than a threat.
Subsequently, IANUS focused on participatory engagement with stakeholders in science, society, and policy as a co-creative process. Our findings call for a methodological and epistemic shift: embracing public values and broadening the knowledge base to include societal (practical, professional and experiential) forms of knowledge. This change carries ethical implications as well to address the challenges of participatory and engaged research.
We examined the commonly accepted assumptions about the cure-all effect of open science and citizen engagement outlining the potential risks and pitfalls. Armed with that nuanced knowledge, we created tools for researchers and citizens to engage critically with each other.
Our interdisciplinary team—including researchers from philosophy, psychology, ethics, data science, and political science—examined trust as a multifaceted and context-dependent phenomenon. We set out to analyse the dynamics of trust and distrust, to assess the current landscape of trust in science and to develop practical pathways to restore and maintain it. We surveyed the literature, conducted historical case studies, and developed a theoretical framework to distinguish warranted from unwarranted trust and distrust. We also incorporated key findings from past EU-funded projects, focusing on challenges such as research misconduct, overpromising, and industry collaborations.
These insights were refined during the empirical, participatory phase, culminating in concrete policy recommendations. Our main conclusion: restoring trust requires research to be transparent, responsive, inclusive, and sensitive to societal values. Trust is not a matter of image but of substance, while ensuring that public concerns are taken on board from the very start. This ethos of “epistemic inclusion” challenges the model of science as a closed, performance-driven knowledge industry. Instead, it advocates open science, grounded in societal relevance.
IANUS partners engaged in 75 events to promote trust-building and produced 15 peer-reviewed publications in various stages of development, all disseminated with open access. Our lessons learned, policy recommendations, toolkits and other resources are published on the IANUS website - https://trustinscience.eu/ - and ZENODO.
Subsequently, IANUS focused on participatory engagement with stakeholders in science, society, and policy as a co-creative process. Our findings call for a methodological and epistemic shift: embracing public values and broadening the knowledge base to include societal (practical, professional and experiential) forms of knowledge. This change carries ethical implications as well to address the challenges of participatory and engaged research.
We examined the commonly accepted assumptions about the cure-all effect of open science and citizen engagement outlining the potential risks and pitfalls. Armed with that nuanced knowledge, we created tools for researchers and citizens to engage critically with each other.
Our interdisciplinary team—including researchers from philosophy, psychology, ethics, data science, and political science—examined trust as a multifaceted and context-dependent phenomenon. We set out to analyse the dynamics of trust and distrust, to assess the current landscape of trust in science and to develop practical pathways to restore and maintain it. We surveyed the literature, conducted historical case studies, and developed a theoretical framework to distinguish warranted from unwarranted trust and distrust. We also incorporated key findings from past EU-funded projects, focusing on challenges such as research misconduct, overpromising, and industry collaborations.
These insights were refined during the empirical, participatory phase, culminating in concrete policy recommendations. Our main conclusion: restoring trust requires research to be transparent, responsive, inclusive, and sensitive to societal values. Trust is not a matter of image but of substance, while ensuring that public concerns are taken on board from the very start. This ethos of “epistemic inclusion” challenges the model of science as a closed, performance-driven knowledge industry. Instead, it advocates open science, grounded in societal relevance.
IANUS partners engaged in 75 events to promote trust-building and produced 15 peer-reviewed publications in various stages of development, all disseminated with open access. Our lessons learned, policy recommendations, toolkits and other resources are published on the IANUS website - https://trustinscience.eu/ - and ZENODO.
From inception, IANUS was conceived as part of a larger effort to foster trust in science. Collaboration with sister projects POIESIS and VERITY was a key strategic effort, leading to joint publications, including our Springer Brief presenting our major insights. We contend that trust in science is essential for informed policy and public confidence—especially during crises—but that it must coexist with the right to question and challenge.
IANUS emerged during the COVID-19 pandemic—a stress test for the science-society relationship. This crisis demanded public engagement with science on an unprecedented scale, revealing both strengths and vulnerabilities of the science-society interaction. Now, new dynamics—like the rise of AI and populism—further complicate these relationships.
In this context, our key message is even more relevant than before: scepticism should not be dismissed but embraced as an opportunity for engagement and dialogue. Researchers must step outside their disciplinary bubbles, listen to critical voices, and reflect on past experiences to build more resilient, socially embedded scientific practices. The participatory, open approach championed by IANUS offers a path forward—not only to rebuild trust but to prepare science and society for the emerging challenges of the future.
IANUS emerged during the COVID-19 pandemic—a stress test for the science-society relationship. This crisis demanded public engagement with science on an unprecedented scale, revealing both strengths and vulnerabilities of the science-society interaction. Now, new dynamics—like the rise of AI and populism—further complicate these relationships.
In this context, our key message is even more relevant than before: scepticism should not be dismissed but embraced as an opportunity for engagement and dialogue. Researchers must step outside their disciplinary bubbles, listen to critical voices, and reflect on past experiences to build more resilient, socially embedded scientific practices. The participatory, open approach championed by IANUS offers a path forward—not only to rebuild trust but to prepare science and society for the emerging challenges of the future.