Experts and our reliance on them are inescapable features of modern life. We lead a life that is dependent on expert knowledge and we seldom show any hesitation to rely on, and indeed to put trust in, their presumed superior knowledge. What goes for our personal lives is even more pronounced in the public sphere. To do their job well, policy makers have to rely on specialised knowledge, good data and well-informed projections. Reliable information is the currency that makes the wheels of policymaking turn smoothly and experts are the source of such information. This is where the question of trust comes in. Experts are not univocal, nor do they come with a seal of reliability inscribed on their persons. And yet, effective governance, particularly in democratic systems, is not possible in the absence of at least some level of trust in experts and the policy measures they recommend. Whether such trust is warranted and how it can be retained have become burning issues of our time.
PERITIA brought together philosophers, social and natural scientists, policy experts, ethicists, psychologists, media specialists and civil society organisations in an attempt to address the complex issues of trust in and the trustworthiness of the experts’ roles in policy decisions. The project investigated the conditions where the general public can and should place trust in experts and the policies resulting from their advice. Better understanding the conditions of warranted trust in experts, in turn, should help address breakdowns in such trust.
The topics of trust and expertise have become prominent, indeed commonplace, in public and political discourse. Complex and difficult questions underlie the topics: How are we to identify genuine experts? Which of the many different claims to expertise should the general public, and policymakers, accept? How do we weigh the costs and benefits of expert advice and how far should the public and policymakers go in implementing their recommendations? How can we find a balance between conflicting demands of differing social goods and priorities? What ethical duties do experts have? What role does the media play in representing, amplifying or distorting expert views? What is the empirical evidence for the alleged breakdown of trust in experts? Are the levels of trust in experts constant across different societies and socio-economic conditions?
Debates on these questions are currently being played out publicly in the social and political spheres and over issues that are literally matters of life and death. The result is often acrimony and partisanship rather than measured discourse.
Trust in policy measures informed by scientific advice is essential for their implementation. Populist politicians, with their anti-elitist rhetoric, have questioned both the trustworthiness of the experts and the legitimacy of various domains of expertise. The project had from the outset sought to be relevant to pressing social and political issues by focusing on trust in climate science as its core test case. What was unexpected and showed, in even starker terms, the urgency of this project was the outbreak of the Covid 19 pandemic. More than ever, we can now see the significance of the role of experts in policy decisions and the centrality of the question of trust in expert advice, both on the part of policymakers and the general public. To respond to the urgency of the issue, the project, in addition to its continued use of trust in climate science as a test case, took on additional research tasks specifically related to Covid 19. The results of these activities were made available to the public through the project webpage.
The project was carried out in three phases, the first two - theoretical followed by empirical - aimed to clarify the nature and conditions of trust, distrust and trustworthiness of expert opinion. In the process, we aimed to achieve a better understanding of the social, psychological and ethical dimensions of trust. We also focused on the role of traditional and social media in propagating genuine information as well as in spreading falsehoods and disinformation on scientific matters.
The empirical phase of the project relied on a survey of attitudes of trust across seven countries as well as on data from online behavioural experiments to better understand the extent and conditions of trust and distrust in experts.
In the final ameliorative phase the project took practical steps to reduce the threat of breakdown of trust by direct engagement with the public. To this end, we hosted deliberative mini-publics (fora for face-to-face discussions between experts and citizens), organised an essay competition for young audiences, and produced podcasts and video series on the topic of trust. The underlying thought was that open discussions between experts and non-experts would enhance mutual understanding and hence trust.
The final aim of the project was to use its theoretical, empirical and practical findings to design an interactive toolkit to help citizens to gauge the trustworthiness of expert advice in social and political decision making.
