Restoring Trust in Science: A Global Imperative

Can the “Right to Science” Restore Public Trust?

by Dorothy J. Phillips, American Chemical Society, 2025 President

Our world is increasingly shaped by misinformation. Declining trust in science poses a serious challenge. Dorothy J. Phillips, 2025 President of the American Chemical Society, believes that restoring this trust may begin with something long overlooked: the “Right to Science.”

Recognized in Article 27 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) and elaborated in Article 15 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (1966), the Right to Science affirms that everyone has the right to access scientific knowledge, education, and the benefits of progress. Yet despite being enshrined in international law for over seven decades, this right remains largely unknown to the public.

Drawing on her decade of experience with the AAAS Science and Human Rights Coalition, Phillips argues that raising awareness of this right—especially among students—can play a powerful role in rebuilding public confidence. The UN’s 2020 General Comment No. 25 provides a framework for implementation, emphasizing not only the protection of scientific freedom but also proactive efforts by governments to ensure access to accurate information and counter disinformation.

This mission is urgent. A 2023 Pew Research Center survey revealed a sharp decline—up to 14 percentage points—in Americans’ trust in scientists since the COVID-19 pandemic. Phillips suggests that reversing this trend begins in the classroom. Early science education, inclusive of all demographics, is critical to cultivating a generation that values evidence-based thinking.

The American Chemical Society’s recent webinar, How to Break Through to Reach Science Deniers, underscores the growing recognition that trust must be earned through outreach, education, and transparency. Phillips’ lecture explored whether affirming and communicating the Right to Science can help shift the tide—promoting a more informed, engaged, and scientifically literate public.

Chemistry for a Fairer, Safer, and More Sustainable World

by Helen Pain, Chief Executive, Royal Society of Chemistry

Public trust in science—especially chemistry—is more vital than ever said Helen Pain, Chief Executive of the Royal Society of Chemistry in her talk. She says chemistry lies at the heart of the materials we use, the medicines we depend on, and the solutions we seek for today’s challenges. But it’s not just the science that matters—it’s how society perceives and interacts with it.

Pain emphasized that chemistry must serve the public good. Ethical considerations now shape both research priorities and regulatory frameworks, especially in areas such as sustainability and chemical safety. Chemistry cannot be divorced from the societal values it impacts.

The Royal Society of Chemistry (RSC) is actively ensuring that chemistry contributes meaningfully to the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). This includes advancing ethical standards, influencing chemical policy, and fostering global equity in science. A key part of this mission is expanding opportunities in the Global South through initiatives like the Pan Africa Chemistry Network and support for early-career researchers.

Inclusivity is another cornerstone of the RSC’s vision. From gender and ethnicity to disability and socioeconomic background, the RSC is working to dismantle barriers within the field. By supporting inclusive education and research, they aim to broaden participation and harness the full potential of diverse talent.

Pain’s message is clear: chemistry is not just a technical discipline—it’s a force for justice, safety, and sustainability. But to fulfill that potential, it must be guided by care, collaboration, and conscience. Through ethical practice and inclusive engagement, chemistry can build a world that is not only more advanced—but also more equitable.

The Future of Science in the Digital Age: Chemistry at a Crossroads

by Omar M. Yaghi, UC Berkeley

In 21st century, science—especially chemistry—stands at a transformative crossroads said Omar M. Yaghi of UC Berkeley in his plenary talk. The rise of digital technologies and artificial intelligence (AI) is unlocking unprecedented opportunities for discovery. Yet, this progress is shadowed by growing vulnerabilities: cyber threats, misinformation, knowledge suppression, and geopolitical tensions.

Prof. Yaghi emphasizes that the scientific enterprise must evolve swiftly to remain relevant. Chemistry, in particular, has the potential to become a fully data-driven and adaptive discipline. AI technologies are already revolutionizing the field—from generative models that design new materials to autonomous laboratories that accelerate experimental work. These innovations offer powerful tools to tackle global challenges in sustainability, energy, and health.

But the path forward demands more than technological capability; it requires ethical clarity and visionary governance. Yaghi warns against prematurely regulating AI in ways that might stifle innovation. Instead, he advocates for a balanced approach—one that safeguards ethical standards while protecting the freedom of scientific inquiry. We must resist fear-driven responses and focus on maximizing the benefits AI can offer to humanity.

Equally important is the democratization of science. Yaghi said that the benefits of scientific progress must be shared equitably across societies. This means ensuring open access to knowledge, fostering global collaboration, and strengthening institutions that uphold the right to science as a universal human entitlement.

From left: David Winkler, Elizabeth Hall, Peter Mahaffy, Helen Pain, Dorothy J. Phillips, Soon Ting Kueh, Ehud Keinan, Omar M. Yaghi, and Paul T. Anastas

In his vision, the future of science lies not only in technological advancement but also in intelligent stewardship. To meet the challenges ahead, we must modernize science with humility, protect it with vigilance, and commit to its role as a global public good—open, inclusive, and driven by innovation with conscience.

Science at a Crossroads: Restoring Integrity and Public Trust

by Elizabeth (Lisa) A. H. Hall, University of Cambridge, UK

Science has long held a privileged place in society, built on the ideals of truth, integrity, and intellectual freedom. But according to Elizabeth Hall, this trust is eroding. Drawing on the foundational ideas of sociologist Robert Merton—who emphasized the unique ethos of science. Hall argues that the distinction between science and other forms of knowledge is increasingly blurred and under attack.

At the heart of this crisis is a breakdown in communication and integrity. Misinformation, conspiracy theories, and information overload have made it difficult for the public—and even scientists themselves—to distinguish fact from fiction. This confusion undermines not only the credibility of individual researchers but also the public’s broader trust in science.

Compounding this issue is the growing number of misconduct cases, including plagiarism, fraud, and data fabrication. While most scientists uphold rigorous ethical standards, even a few violations can cast a long shadow. Hall warns that scientific freedom must come with accountability. Researchers have a duty to ensure reproducibility, transparency, and honest interpretation of results.

Beyond the lab, scientists must consider how their work affects society. Should all research aim to improve human life or provoke intellectual transformation? Does the right to discovery include the freedom to explore without interference from politics, law, or ideology?

Hall calls on the scientific community to reflect on its responsibilities. Rebuilding trust will require more than sound methods—it demands a recommitment to openness, critical self-examination, and public engagement. In an age of rapid technological change and growing skepticism, the future of science depends not just on what we discover, but how we uphold the values that make science worthy of society’s trust.

Helen Pain and Paul Anastas

Science: A Truth Worth Defending

by Paul T. Anastas, Yale University, USA

Science and scientific institutions face growing skepticism said Paul T. Anastas in his plenary talk. He called for a critical and honest reflection: Why does science now need defending?

Citing Einstein’s assertion that “the right to search for the truth implies also a duty,” Anastas argues that ethical conduct and integrity must remain central to science. But the need to preserve and protect science goes beyond defending its credibility—it requires understanding why it is under attack in the first place.

Historically, science emerged from resistance. The Scientific Revolution challenged entrenched beliefs and often faced accusations of heresy. Over centuries, science transformed into a dominant force of knowledge—what some have called a new orthodoxy. But with power comes scrutiny, and Anastas urges us to examine whether modern science’s methods, culture, or institutions may themselves contribute to public distrust.

Do individuals or institutions feel threatened by scientific findings? Are political, ideological, or economic forces driving the backlash? Is science too often perceived as elitist, opaque, or disconnected from public concerns?

Anastas does not simply lament the erosion of public trust. Instead, he challenges the scientific community to confront uncomfortable truths about itself. Introspection, he suggests, is essential—not only to restore confidence but to build a science that truly serves society.

By asking hard questions and acknowledging past shortcomings, science can be strengthened—not weakened. The path forward lies not in defensiveness, but in openness, accountability, and a renewed commitment to the values that made science a trusted pursuit in the first place. In doing so, we affirm that science is not just worthy of protection—it is worthy of the public’s belief, engagement, and support.

Building Trust in Science: A Two-Way Commitment

by Peter Mahaffy, The King’s University, Edmonton, Canada

Restoring trust in science requires more than correcting misinformation—it demands that scientists understand their audiences and that science itself is demonstrably worthy of trust said Peter Mahaffy in his plenary talk. He argues that effective science communication must move beyond the outdated “deficit model,” which assumes public mistrust stems from a lack of knowledge. Instead, scientists must engage with the public’s values, perspectives, and lived experiences.

David Winkler, Peter Mahaffy, and Elizabeth Hall

Drawing from his work with IUPAC and other international bodies, Mahaffy emphasizes that science communication should be rooted in mutual understanding. A key reference is the IUPAC Project Chemists and “The Public” (2008), [1] which highlights how scientists can better connect with diverse audiences by applying systems thinking and acknowledging context—critical in combating the spread of misinformation.

Equally important is ensuring science remains trustworthy. Mahaffy highlights global initiatives like the International Science Council’s Principle of the Universality of Science, which balances the freedom to conduct research with the responsibility to uphold ethical standards. This principle was refined to reinforce that scientific freedom must go hand-in-hand with accountability.

Ethical practice in chemistry is central to Mahaffy’s message. The Hague Ethical Guidelines, developed by chemists worldwide, underscore the importance of safeguarding science from misuse, particularly in light of the Chemical Weapons Convention. Similarly, the IUPAC CEDEI task force has developed Guiding Principles for the Responsible Practice of Chemistry, that was formally launched at the 2025 World Chemistry Congress in Malaysia. These principles aim to foster a culture of integrity, transparency, and public engagement.

Mahaffy’s vision for building trust in science is clear: scientists must listen as much as they speak, commit to ethical conduct, and embrace responsibility as part of their professional identity. Only then can science maintain the public’s confidence and fulfill its role in advancing the common good.

Science Under Siege: Confronting the Hydra’s Many Heads

by David Winkler, La Trobe University, Monash University, University of Nottingham

Science is facing a multifaceted and intensifying assault, likened by Professor David Winkler to a Hydra—each challenge spawning new threats even as others are addressed. While attacks on science are nothing new, today’s wave is unprecedented in scale and complexity, fueled by political polarization, digital disruption, and growing public skepticism.

The internet has democratized access to scientific research but also enabled the rise of predatory journals and conferences, diluting the impact of legitimate science. The explosion of AI-generated content—often built on flawed, biased, or insufficient data—has further strained the credibility of scientific outputs. Peer reviewers, overwhelmed by a flood of low-quality submissions, are stretched thin, making it easier for unvetted studies to slip through.

A reproducibility crisis also looms large. A 2016 Nature survey found that over 70 % of researchers across disciplines failed to replicate others’ results—and more than half failed to reproduce their own. Confirmation bias, underpowered studies, and a rush to publish are compounding the issue. Pre-registration of experiments and new models of continuous online review may help reverse this trend.

Ethical oversight remains uneven. While some organizations like the American Chemical Society and Royal Society of Chemistry enforce formal codes of ethics, many universities still fail to mandate coursework on scientific integrity and bias. Winkler highlights the urgent need for a global chemical ethics framework, especially given the powerful—and potentially dangerous—applications of chemistry and biology.

Finally, anti-science rhetoric, particularly in the U.S., has been amplified by social media influencers and uncredentialed commentators. The erosion of expert voices, visible during the COVID-19 pandemic, underscores the need for renewed advocacy. The path forward may include more grassroots efforts—like the March for Science—and a renewed global commitment to uphold the integrity, transparency, and public value of scientific inquiry.

https://iupac.org/event/wclm-2025-trust-in-science-and-the-right-to-science/