Strengthening Science in the Long Term

In “What We Don’t Know About Public Perceptions of Science” (Issues, Summer 2025), Erica Palma Kimmerling and Eve Klein call for more robust public participation in science to “cultivate trust and broader public support.” Their findings illustrate a critical disconnect that demands both immediate strategic thinking and long-term structural reform.

First, we must keep in mind that the public’s limited awareness of federal science infrastructure represents rational prioritization, not ignorance. As a scientist and educator who has also been involved in local government policymaking, I have seen this firsthand: Citizens focus on tangible outcomes (e.g., housing affordability or cures for disease) rather than on complex institutional processes (e.g., municipal zoning or funding appropriations).

This outcome-oriented perspective centers shared values but creates vulnerability when underlying procedural foundations are threatened. The present threats to health and science research infrastructure represent one aspect of the current administration’s broader ideological campaign to reshape the federal government’s responsibilities. However, just as Kimmerling and Klein’s results show that there is no significant “anti-science” coalition among the public, federal decisionmakers are also not unified in cutting support for science. Members of Congress from both parties have advocated for disbursement of critical research funding, and (as of late August) congressional appropriators have recommended significantly fewer cuts to science and technology agencies than those proposed by the White House.

This divide reveals the need to differentiate strategies for defending the institutional infrastructure of science from promoting its public enterprise. Rapid and targeted political tactics, not public engagement, will be what hopefully averts the most damaging short-term actions. On the other hand, strengthening science in the long term requires exactly the community-centered approaches that political defense does not.

As the authors suggest, recent trends show promising paths for increasing public participation that will benefit from improved data and research. Science centers and museums, along with other civic organizations, have focused on community engagement to build tools and partnerships for meaningful collaboration and policymaking. Science communication researchers and practitioners are developing new strategies to infuse credible health and science information into social media ecosystems. Most significantly, I see younger scientists from diverse backgrounds eager to build these skills into their research training. Yet institutional barriers persist; traditional models of federally funded research, especially in academia, have not supported or incentivized this work as essential components of science. Perhaps more, and more nuanced, research on public values and priorities can help promote partnerships in research design, fund collaborative problem-solving with communities, and reward public engagement as intellectually rigorous work.

The current political situation has galvanized a movement for greater public engagement with science. However, we will be shortsighted if we pursue this goal primarily for political ends. Public engagement may indeed yield political benefits. But if we are to build a new, more participatory model of science, we must invest in the effort because it will ultimately improve science.

Jayatri Das

Erica Palma Kimmerling and Eve Klein’s striking findings are a call to change how science engages the American people. Critically, people don’t want to be an audience for science—they want to be partners in shaping how science serves our collective future.

The need for change—and how to get there—is inspiring growing cross-sector collaborations under the umbrella of civic science. Together, we are exploring how to seize the opportunity of a remarkable appetite for partnership, when, as Kimmerling and Klein note, 61% of people surveyed want the public to have “a say in whether and how new scientific discoveries are introduced in society.”

As the authors illustrate, a key starting point is listening to people from a variety of contexts to understand how they view science and its connection to their priorities. A further challenge is responding to what we learn and bringing those changes to scale. The organization behind Kimmerling and Klein’s research, the Association of Science and Technology Centers (ASTC), is a remarkable example of combining listening, community engagement, and innovation to reshape the relationship between science and the public. It is supporting its member organizations—which engage more than 110 million people annually and are among the most trusted sources of scientific information—to become laboratories for civic science.

This moment calls for building and supporting networks combining research and action, as well as equipping a new generation of leaders to bridge science, communities, and democracy. This need was the inspiration for a coalition of funders and host organizations—including the Rita Allen Foundation—to create the Civic Science Fellows program. Since its launch in 2020, the program has supported 71 fellows, including Kimmerling. They have, for example, helped science museums become centers for community science and climate action, and partnered with communities on such diverse issues as exploring the implications of sleep neuroscience research, building capacity to respond to sea-level rise, and managing risks and opportunities in artificial intelligence development.

Supporting networks, next-generation leaders, and further research are outstanding opportunities for philanthropy to strengthen the scientific ecosystem, as recently discussed in Issues. Kimmerling and Klein share that, alarmingly, nearly half of respondents believe private entities could adequately fill gaps created by federal science budget cuts. This misconception underscores the urgent need for sustained philanthropic investment—not to replace federal funding, but to catalyze building the engagement infrastructure that can strengthen public commitment to science as a shared resource that requires public support.

Achieving the deeper engagement the public seeks will require sustained collaboration across sectors. It means creating opportunities for scientists to listen as much as they explain, for communities to help shape research agendas, and for boundary spanners who bridge the worlds of science, policy, and community to be recognized and supported in the essential work they do. Science will be stronger for it—benefiting from earned public trust and support, and the full ingenuity and insights of our communities in shaping our scientific future.

Elizabeth G. Christopherson

Erica Palma Kimmerling and Eve Klein call for more survey data about public views of science as the nation navigates unprecedented times. We couldn’t agree more. In the words of Abraham Lincoln: “Public sentiment is everything. With it, nothing can fail; against it, nothing can succeed.” Research!America has answered this call for decades, keeping a finger on the pulse of public sentiment. Currently, we are examining attitudes toward science among 18- to 24-year-olds (tomorrow’s leaders), seniors, and moms (the latter two being among today’s most civically active groups).

We strongly agree with Kimmerling and Klein about the need for improved collaboration between researchers and the public they serve: “[People] don’t want to be passive recipients of the outputs of science—they want to be partners (my emphasis added) in how science shapes our collective future.” Further underscoring this point, Research!America’s commissioned survey in January 2025 found that about 85% of Americans say scientists should consider it a part of their job to inform the public about their research and its impact on society.

For too long and too often, scientists have either taken public support for granted or attempted to force their expertise and knowledge on the public. What needs to happen instead is true engagement with those who are supporting science with their tax, consumer, and perhaps philanthropic dollars. Engagement means more listening and takes time. Both will be worth it if we are to see improvement in the dismal statistics about the public’s ability to name a living scientist (only about a third can do that); name a place where research is conducted (less than half), or agree that research takes place in all 50 states (only about half agree). The science community has work to do to deploy scientists themselves to help overcome public invisibility—one person, one Thanksgiving dinner, one conversation on the sidelines of a child’s sports event, one letter to the editor of a local newspaper, one visit to the local office of a member of Congress at a time.

Indeed, it’s time to purposefully expand access to training for scientists so they can become proficient in engaging the public. A number of organizations, including ours and that of the authors, have taken this on, largely with foundation funding, developing curriculum, new programs, and new fellowships, and new ways of gauging community needs, under the umbrella of “civic science.” Early-career scientists have embraced these opportunities and are leading the way. Less successful to date are efforts to ensure that the culture of academia values and incentivizes public engagement.

To send a clear and believable message that the research community works for the public, we must stop talking so much to each other and get into the community. During this time of turmoil, we need to keep a finger on the pulse of public sentiment via surveys and also via public engagement, building as many bridges as we can.

Mary Woolley

Erica Palma Kimmerling and Eve Klein do us all a service by approaching their recent findings from a deficit perspective: We do not know enough about public perceptions of science, and that lack of understanding leaves us unprepared for the challenges ahead. As the authors highlight, beneath the polls showing broad approval for science lies a much more complex reality, shaped by context, experience, and identity. If we are serious about working toward a healthy relationship between science and society, we each need to find our own ways to illuminate that complexity.

The challenge of this complexity is compounded by the fact that the word science itself carries a multitude of meanings. Are we referring to a body of knowledge? A special process or way of knowing? Authority and expertise tightly held by institutions? A cultural, historical, and economic force? Science is all these things, and so much more. This is not merely pedantic hairsplitting. If we want to better understand the public perception of science, then we must be ready to listen carefully to the real point of reference in any conversation.

While nodding along to the authors’ call for “deeper forms of public engagement,” I was reminded of a recent experience meeting a new acquaintance at a dinner party. In the course of conversation, I mentioned the word science, and she reflexively exclaimed, “Science is my enemy!” What an opportunity to find out more. Was her view a symptom of the divisive and partisan culture war? No, for her the word equated to childhood trauma from a stultifying school system. This fluidity of meaning makes it nearly impossible to assume that a single narrative—or a single polling question—captures what the public thinks or values.

Another important point the authors raise is that people are not passive consumers of science. Many want to be active participants in shaping how scientific discoveries are applied and governed. This suggests that public perceptions of science are not simply attitudes to be measured, but relationships to be nurtured. That requires scientists, policymakers, and communicators to listen as much as they explain, and to create spaces where diverse voices can meaningfully influence decisions.

The authors are right to call for more research, both quantitative and qualitative. Further research will require careful intention and critical consideration. But the questions are too big, and the answers too dynamically changing, to be left solely to a small number of specialized researchers. So those of us with a concern for the science-society relationship need to recognize that this is not only a technical problem, but also a problem of our own culture. We all have a role to play in better understanding how the public perceives science. Kimmerling and Klein have taken a helpful step, and I look forward to what they find next. In the meantime, the rest of us cannot wait. Each of us must find our own ways to step into the essential and continual work of listening, questioning, and collaborating.

Ben Wiehe