Editorial

A recent study involving numerous research laboratories around the world looked at the trust placed in scientists by citizens. The results show not only that, contrary to popular belief, trust in the scientific community has not eroded on a global scale, but also that a large majority of the more than 70,000 respondents believe that scientists have a duty to communicate their findings (better) to the general public. As the study states: “Public perception of scientific integrity—one of four components of trust—is high, but perceptions of scientists’ openness are comparably lower. Therefore, scientists wishing to gain more public trust could work on being more receptive to feedback, more transparent about their funding and data sources, and invest more effort into communicating about science with the public—which we found to be desired by 83% of respondents” (p. 16) So the question is: how can we be more transparent, more receptive to feedback, and better communicators? To this end, we interviewed not a researcher, but...a bot. Dr. Niels G. Mede, the Swiss researcher involved in the project’s bot. His answer, which you can find here, encourages us in the direction Babylonia is taking. “Science communication should emphasize topics that resonate with the public's interests and concerns. Communication should not come across as patronizing. It is essential to recognize and validate the insights and needs of the public to avoid triggering resentment, particularly among skeptics.” This is our intention with this issue of Babylonia, where we started from the questions and concerns of parents and posed them to recognized researchers. While recognizing that, for this editorial, we explicitly searched for the scientific results that served our purposes best (the most common of fallacies!), we wish you an excellent read - and look forward to your feedback and further questions!