Who trusts scientists for information about climate change? Nuclear power? Vaccines?

Abstract:

US public acceptance/rejection of science on the topic of climate change has become highly polarized, with a demographic profile well established through survey research. Trust in scientists for information about climate change tends to increase with education, decrease with age, and is higher among self-identified liberals and moderates than among conservatives. Demographic profiles of people who do or do not trust scientists regarding other disputed topics are less well established. Some observers have argued that certain domains such as vaccines, nuclear power or genetically modified organisms (GMOs) could present a mirror image of climate change, with liberals instead of conservatives disproportionately rejecting science on that topic. Evidence for this mirror-image hypothesis has been mainly anecdotal, however. Here we test it systematically using statewide survey data on more than 1200 interviews, comparing five similarly worded questions that ask respondents whether they trust, don't trust, or are unsure about scientists as a source of information about ... climate change, vaccines, evolution, nuclear power safety, or GMOs. Climate change proves to be the most polarized of these topics, but all five exhibit roughly similar age, education and ideological effects -- contrary to the mirror-image hypothesis. The common patterns across five science domains, chosen for their hypothetical contrasts, map out an unexpectedly cohesive picture of who trusts scientists for information, and who does not. Implications of these survey results for public outreach and science communication are explored.