Contested credibility: Public perceptions of scientists as experts

Science is widely embraced as an important prerequisite for innovation, and there is widespread support for public investment in science on that basis. However, it remains more contested whether and when science is recognized as a relevant source of expertise in contemporary debates beyond the academic sphere. Drawing on nationally representative survey panels from two European countries (the United Kingdom and Sweden), we investigate whether scientists are perceived as more credible senders of messages regarding societal challenges compared with attribution to other types of expert groups (government, businesspersons, and issue advocates). Evidence from a conjoint analysis paints a rather bleak picture: scientists' credibility is only superior to that of government officials, but not businesspersons or issue advocates. We furthermore find that scientists are more credible when communicating technological issues than non-technological ones. This pattern can be traced back to three types of perceived sources of distrust (vested interest, partisanship and irrelevance) that are activated more strongly for non-technological issues. The same three sources of distrust also underpin the general credibility disadvantage of scientists as experts. Implications for our understanding of the social contract of science are discussed.