Reacción a "The Spanish population trusts science, but demands more communication and citizen engagement, according to FECYT's survey on social perception"

For more than two decades, the Social Perception of Science and Technology Survey (EPSCT) has been taking the pulse of the relationship between citizens and science in Spain. More than just a series of data, it is a map of the collective imagination: a tool that allows us to observe how the images, concerns and links we weave around science evolve. In a context marked by rapid technological change, global crises and information polarisation, this edition offers a particularly revealing snapshot.

What it shows is a landscape of light and shadow. Science continues to enjoy recognition, but that recognition is no longer expressed as blind faith or unconditional admiration. Citizens value scientific knowledge, but they also question its orientation, its limits and its social implications. The resulting image is neither uniform nor stable: it is an architecture under construction, traversed by tensions between trust and scepticism, between enthusiasm and concern.

To talk about the social perception of science is to talk about the image that each person constructs throughout their life. This image is formed at school, at home, in the media, on social networks and in everyday conversations. It is shaped by social, cultural and emotional factors, by personal experiences and shared beliefs. It is not just what we know, but how we fit it into what we value. And it is not limited to the rational: it acts as an internal compass that guides our decisions as patients, voters, consumers or parents. That is why understanding this image is fundamental to any science policy that aspires to be democratic.

One of the central elements revealed by the survey is the need to think about the relationship between citizenship and science as an ecological issue, rather than as a simple deficit. It is not about filling gaps in knowledge, but about understanding how knowledge, emotions, contexts and values are intertwined. Science is not perceived solely as a set of facts, but as part of a collective conversation about what is legitimate, true and valuable in a society seeking guidance in the face of uncertainty.

This ecosystem includes, among other dimensions, interest in science, perception of available information and the degree of scientific literacy. Although interest remains steady or is even growing, many people still consider themselves poorly informed. Furthermore, the higher the level of education, the more the shortcomings of the available scientific information are perceived: people appreciate what is there, but they notice what is missing. This gap can be interpreted, however, as a sign of vitality: interest is present and opens up space to strengthen the channels that feed it in a sustained manner.

To understand why this gap persists, it is also worth looking at how and where scientific information circulates in everyday life. The circulation of scientific information does not only take place in the media. It also occurs at home, at work and in informal networks. The figures who mediate between science and society—teachers, communicators, doctors, journalists—play a key role as translators, interpreters and validators. This mediation is not neutral: those with greater cultural capital not only have access to more information, but also reinterpret it with greater authority. Thus, science circulates through channels that reflect, and sometimes reproduce, social inequalities.

In this framework, scientific literacy occupies a central place, understood not as technical erudition, but as the ability to interpret evidence-based discourse. It is not enough to know formulas; a toolbox is needed to distinguish between a well-founded claim and an empty technicality, between reasonable doubt and fallacy. Nor is this literacy evenly distributed: it depends on life experience, cultural capital and early experiences with science. And these underlying inequalities affect not only access to knowledge, but also its distribution and social legitimacy.

The public image of science that emerges from the survey is, in this sense, nuanced. Its usefulness, legitimacy and capacity to generate rigorous knowledge are recognised. But its limits, contradictions and risks are also questioned, in a display of critical thinking rather than mistrust. This is not a naive or anti-scientific citizenry: it is a critical citizenry, capable of valuing the contributions of science while questioning its uses, funding and instrumentalisation. Risk awareness does not negate trust, but it does modulate it. In fact, mistrust is not usually directed at science as such, but at the power structures that condition it.

This same critical and vigilant attitude also extends to citizen participation: it is valued as a principle, but does not always translate into active or equitable practices. In terms of participation, the data reveal a gap between the abstract desire for citizen involvement and its actual exercise. The possibility of participating is valued, but it is delegated to experts; the importance of expressing opinions is recognised, but without taking on an active role. Participatory experiences are limited and uneven, and often those who most need to participate are those who have the fewest resources to do so. Participation, like trust, cannot be decreed: it must be built. And to do so, it is necessary to create conditions of equal access, genuine listening and respect for social epistemologies.

All these dimensions converge on a key issue: trust. This is not a monolithic block, but a network of links. People trust the technical competence of science, but doubt its independence. The scientific method is valued, but institutional neutrality is questioned. Results are respected, but the interests that frame them are viewed with suspicion. This tension is not a problem in itself: it is a healthy form of democratic vigilance. Trust, when well founded, does not imply submission, but rather a critical understanding of how science works: its rhythms, its disagreements, its uncertainties. When science does not offer immediate answers or when experts disagree, society does not lose trust, because it has not placed its trust in a promise of infallibility, but in a process guided by replicability, review and transparency. And a society that understands this is better prepared to live with complexity.

In short, EPSCT 2024 does not offer a single narrative, but many. There is no single way for citizens to relate to science, nor is there a single way to value it. What emerges is a critical ecology, in which adherence and reservations, recognition and vigilance, a desire to learn and a need to question coexist. Cultivating this ecology involves strengthening scientific education, but also humanistic education; encouraging rigorous dissemination, but also public deliberation; promoting access to knowledge, but also the ability to interpret it critically. Only then will a truly democratic contract between science and society be possible, where knowing, trusting and participating are not privileges, but shared rights.