Restoring Trust in Science: The Middle Explores COVID, Policy, and Science Communication

Overview

In a special crossover, The Middle hosts a conversation about trust in science, examining how the pandemic politicized scientific guidance and what it reveals about public understanding. Flora Lichtman, host of Science Friday, and Priya Natarajan, a theoretical astrophysicist, discuss how trust in science has varied across communities and over time, the tension between scientific uncertainty and public messaging, and the opportunities to restore faith through clearer, more transparent communication and better engagement with policy and funding. The discussion is enriched by caller perspectives on vaccine messaging, measles outbreaks, and the role of researchers in public communication.

What to take away

Trust in science is not monolithic, and messaging matters. The episode highlights the need to connect scientific discoveries to everyday impacts, acknowledge provisional knowledge, and improve science communication to bridge divides.

Introduction and Episode Context

The Middle presents a live call-in conversation about trust in science, inviting Flora Lichtman of Science Friday and Priya Natarajan of Yale to explore how trust in science has evolved in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. The hosts address the politicization of pandemic responses, from masks to vaccines, and the broader implications for science communication and public policy. The discussion frames science as a dynamic process that interacts with public health, politics, and media, and it acknowledges the emotional and civic dimensions of trust. Listeners share experiences ranging from vaccine messaging to measles outbreaks, illustrating the real-world consequences when scientific guidance clashes with political narratives.

"trust in science has varied over history, and it's shaped by the personal experiences and communities you belong to" - Flora Lichtman

The Trust Landscape Post-Pandemic

Flora and Priya describe the pandemic as a moment when scientific advice was rapidly changing, and as a result, public perception of science became more complicated. They stress that trust is built or eroded not just by the accuracy of findings, but by how those findings are communicated, updated, and contextualized. Priya argues that the distrust in science is a long-standing paradox in American culture, where a scientific powerhouse status coexists with denialism. The speakers emphasize that demystifying the scientific process—making clear that science is provisional and driven by evidence—could help restore confidence, especially in an age of social media and rapid information cycles.

"the process of science is messy, it's not linear, the way scientists figure stuff out is complicated, but it's still rigorous" - Priya Natarajan

Funding, Policy, and Public Perception

The conversation covers federal funding and political battles over research budgets, noting bipartisan momentum to maintain funding levels for major science agencies. Flora highlights that recent NIH budgets showed modest increases despite anticipated cuts, underscoring that political support can stabilize rather than erode science funding. The dialogue broadens to the role of media literacy and the importance of scientists communicating what they do and why it matters whenever public funding is involved. The callers contribute practical concerns about how costs and access to medicines shape perceptions of scientific enterprise.

"we need to connect the dots and show people what the returns are from basic science" - Flora Lichtman

Voices from the Call-Ins

Christina, a public health nurse, urges clearer, more direct science communication about infectious diseases, illustrating how nuance can sometimes obscure urgency. Her point about communicating the seriousness of contagious diseases like measles highlights a tension between caution and clarity in public messaging. Samir pushes for faster breakthroughs on diseases funded by taxpayers, and he notes the need for tangible health outcomes. Aaron comments on how people respond to information depending on the presenter’s credibility and likability, while Alex argues that epistemic humility is essential for trust, describing science as a process of questioning and revision rather than a final verdict. The segment demonstrates that building trust requires listening to diverse voices and acknowledging emotional and cultural factors in addition to data and policy.

"epistemic humility is what makes science trustworthy in the first place" - Alex, tenured professor and scientist

"I need to like you for you to be right" - Aaron, Thornton, Colorado

A Path Forward: Humility, Clarity, and Connection

Flora reflects on the human side of science, emphasizing curiosity, empathy, and the daily effort of telling better science stories. Priya notes that the scientific enterprise has delivered remarkable progress, but that the public’s trust depends on demystifying how science operates and linking discoveries to real-world benefits. The conversation ends on a hopeful note about a future where science communication bridges the gap between laboratory work and everyday life, leveraging transparent processes and responsible messaging to rebuild trust across political divides.

"trust in science is built through transparency, humility, and storytelling that connects research to everyday life" - Flora Lichtman