The argument rests on a fundamental rethinking of how knowledge moves between research, governance, and the public. Traditional models of science–policy interaction assumed a linear pipeline: researchers produce facts, experts distill them into advice, and decision-makers apply that advice to problems. In this view, controversy represents contamination—value-laden disputes intruding on value-free facts. Yet decades of research in science and technology studies have demonstrated that the linear model rarely describes how policy actually works. Food systems are what scholars call wicked problems: they involve multiple legitimate perspectives, deep uncertainty, contested values, and tightly coupled social, ecological, and economic dimensions. No amount of data alone can settle questions such as how much land should be devoted to livestock farming or whether gene-edited crops should fall under the same regulations as transgenic organisms. These questions demand deliberation, and deliberation is inherently contested.

Seen through this lens, controversy is not noise obscuring the scientific signal; it is a signal in its own right. Controversies reveal where public concerns genuinely lie, where evidence is thin or contested, where institutions have lost trust, and where policy frameworks have failed to keep pace with technological or social change. When scientists and scientific advisory bodies retreat from controversy, they leave a vacuum that is quickly filled by less rigorous voices: industry lobbying campaigns, activist absolutism, conspiracy theories, and misinformation. The withdrawal of credible expertise from contested terrain does not depoliticize the debate; it simply removes the most careful participants from it. Conversely, when scientists enter controversies with humility about uncertainty and openness about values, they can elevate the quality of the entire conversation.

Concrete examples abound across the food domain. The prolonged European disputes over glyphosate herbicides, for instance, initially saw scientific assessment agencies produce technically sound but socially tone-deaf evaluations, triggering accusations of capture and conspiracy that eroded trust in regulatory science. Subsequent rounds of assessment placed far greater emphasis on transparency, on independent scrutiny of industry data, and on direct public engagement—an approach widely credited with partially restoring legitimacy even among skeptics. Similarly, debates over Golden Rice and other biofortified crops demonstrated that resistance was often rooted not in ignorance of the science but in legitimate concerns about corporate control of seed systems and the adequacy of technological fixes for problems of poverty and distribution. Researchers and institutions that acknowledged these concerns, rather than dismissing opponents as anti-science, found more productive pathways toward deployment and policy acceptance.

The mechanisms by which engagement strengthens science–policy–society interfaces are increasingly well understood. First, controversy forces articulation. When researchers must defend and explain their findings to skeptical publics, they are compelled to clarify assumptions, expose uncertainties, and distinguish firmly established results from contested interpretations. This process frequently improves the science itself, identifying blind spots and untested assumptions that would otherwise remain hidden. Second, controversy builds trust through visibility. Public trust in science is less a product of deference to authority than of demonstrated reliability, openness, and responsiveness. Scientists who engage critics directly, admit errors when they occur, and update positions as evidence evolves signal these qualities far more effectively than institutions that communicate only through polished consensus documents.

Third, engagement surfaces the value questions that linear models suppress. Questions about food are never purely technical. Whether a society should prioritize yields, environmental resilience, animal welfare, rural livelihoods, or consumer choice is a matter of values, and pretending otherwise breeds cynicism. Structured engagement with controversy allows these values to be named and negotiated explicitly, in formats such as citizen assemblies, deliberative mapping exercises, participatory technology assessment, and multi-stakeholder platforms. In several countries, such deliberative processes have reshaped national food strategies, demonstrating that citizens can grapple responsibly with complexity when given genuine influence and adequate information. Science contributes the evidence base; deliberation weighs the trade-offs; policy reflects the negotiated outcome. Each element is stronger because the others are present.

None of this implies that engagement is easy or risk-free. Scientists who enter contested arenas face harassment, organized campaigns against their reputations, and the temptation to overstate certainty in defense of their position. Institutional incentives, including funding structures and publication metrics, rarely reward time spent on policy engagement or public deliberation. Early-career researchers in particular may fear professional consequences for taking public positions, however carefully qualified. Moreover, engagement can be weaponized: bad-faith actors may exploit scientists’ willingness to debate to manufacture false balance or to launder fringe claims with borrowed credibility. These risks are real, and ignoring them would itself be a failure of rigor.

The response, however, is not withdrawal but strategic and institutionalized engagement. That means equipping researchers with training in communication, negotiation, and the sociology of controversy; providing legal and institutional protection for scientists who face retaliation; building dedicated boundary organizations and knowledge broker roles that mediate between research, policy, and publics; and designing advisory processes that are transparent about whose interests are represented and how value judgments enter assessments. It also means diversifying who speaks for science. Controversies over food disproportionately affect farmers, Indigenous communities, low-income consumers, and food workers, yet these groups are chronically underrepresented in expert panels. Interfaces that incorporate this diversity are not just more legitimate; they are epistemically richer, drawing on experiential and local knowledge that formal science often misses, from farmers’ tacit understanding of soil and weather to community knowledge of food access barriers.

The scholarly case for embracing controversy also carries implications for how scientific institutions measure success. If the goal of science–policy–society interfaces is not merely the transfer of information but the cultivation of shared understanding and durable decisions, then indicators such as citation counts or the volume of policy briefs produced are poor measures of effectiveness. More meaningful metrics include the extent to which advisory processes are trusted by contested stakeholders, whether deliberative outputs actually influence legislation, how controversies evolve over successive episodes, and whether previously polarized positions converge toward workable compromises. Longitudinal studies of food governance suggest that interfaces built on engagement and deliberation are more resilient across political cycles than those built on technocratic authority, which tend to collapse whenever political power shifts against them.

Ultimately, the argument reframes one of the oldest tensions in the relationship between science and society. Food system controversies are not temporary disruptions on the road to a settled consensus; they are permanent features of democratic governance over matters that touch everyone, three times a day. A science system that treats them as threats will retreat into irrelevance, ceding the terrain to those least equipped to navigate complexity. A science system that treats them as opportunities—moments to clarify, to listen, to deliberate, and to rebuild trust—can transform conflict into a generative force for better policy and a more food-secure, sustainable, and equitable world. The evidence increasingly suggests that the second path is not merely more virtuous but more effective, and that the future of evidence-informed food governance depends on scientists willing to meet controversy where it lives: in the public square.

Subject of Research: The role of scientists' engagement in food system controversies in strengthening science–policy–society interfaces

Article Title: Engagement in food system-related controversies can strengthen science–policy–society interfaces

Article References: Engagement in food system-related controversies can strengthen science–policy–society interfaces. (n.d.). https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-026-01416-y

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: 10.1038/s43016-026-01416-y

Keywords: food systems, science policy, controversies, public engagement, deliberation, trust in science, evidence-based policy, food governance, wicked problems, science communication, stakeholder participation, sustainability

The pilot study was conducted during the summer of 2023 at two very different UK institutions: the small Fenn Bell Conservation Project in Kent, where 76 visitors observed a pair of Asian small-clawed otters (Aonyx cinereus), and the much larger Twycross Zoo in the Midlands, where 155 visitors studied two Rothschild giraffe (Giraffa camelopardalis rothschildi). Participants were recruited through posters with QR codes at the enclosures and asked to watch the animals for two minutes before completing an online questionnaire built on a pre-defined ethogram, a structured list of species-typical behaviours including positive, negative and neutral welfare indicators. The questionnaire also invited optional sections on how the animals seemed to be feeling, what animal welfare meant to the visitors themselves, and how they had found the citizen science experience.

Technically, the design was deliberately cautious. Because visitor observations could not be paired with simultaneous video observations from the same individual, and because the two data sources differed in duration, the researchers did not treat the comparison as a validation exercise. Instead, they used systematically coded CCTV footage as a reference dataset, applying instantaneous scan sampling with one-minute intervals between 11am and 3pm, and summarising both datasets as hourly and daily presence or absence records. At the daily level, both data sources captured walking or running in the otters on all study days and chewing the cud, eating and drinking, standing and locomotion in the giraffe, while the largest discrepancies appeared for infrequent or harder-to-identify behaviours such as grooming and social interactions.

The psychological results proved equally instructive. Visitors scored the animals on eight qualitative terms, including content, relaxed, agitated, frustrated, comfortable, wary, confident and distressed, and then gave an overall welfare rating from 1 to 10. Spearman’s rank correlations revealed a coherent pattern at both sites: welfare scores rose alongside positively valenced adjectives such as content, comfortable, confident and lively or engaged, and fell alongside negative terms such as frustrated, agitated and wary. For the otters, the correlation with contentment was particularly strong, while for the giraffe even wary and agitated scores tracked downward with welfare ratings. Although participants were told in advance which terms indicated positive or negative welfare, the authors note these exploratory associations provide preliminary evidence of construct validity in public assessments of animal affective states.

Perhaps the most encouraging finding concerned how visitors conceptualised welfare itself. Asked to define or describe animal welfare, most respondents produced answers that mapped cleanly onto the Five Domains model, the contemporary framework covering nutrition, environment, health, behaviour and mental state. At Fenn Bell, 86 percent referenced physiological welfare, 64 percent mental state and 41 percent behaviour; at Twycross the figures were 93, 54 and 24 percent respectively. Fifteen otter visitors and thirteen giraffe visitors touched on all three broad themes, offering definitions such as meeting an animal’s emotional, physical, mental and health needs as naturally as possible through diet, environment and enrichment. The researchers observed, however, that visitors leaned towards input-based measures such as food and space rather than output-based measures such as behaviour, and that behavioural domains were the hardest for the public to articulate.

Where visitors learned their welfare concepts also carried a clear message for the zoo sector. Zoos themselves ranked among the most frequently cited sources of knowledge, with 45 of the Twycross respondents attributing their understanding to that zoo alone, ahead of television documentaries and educational facilities. The authors interpret this as evidence that educational material provided by zoos is being positively received, and they recommend that zoos place greater emphasis on positive behavioural interactions within their welfare science communication. Given that negative public perceptions of welfare can erode trust in zoos and reduce willingness to engage in conservation efforts, effective communication of welfare science is not a luxury but a strategic necessity for modern institutions.

Engagement levels were striking. At Twycross, where a researcher was present at the enclosure to encourage participation, an average of 27 visitors per day completed the survey; at the smaller Fenn Bell site, where participation was self-directed, the mean was 3.4 per day. Across both sites, 93 to 95 percent of respondents said they would take part in a similar activity again, and 79 percent overall described the process as rewarding. Crucially, the majority of participants were infrequent zoo visitors, with the largest group attending less than once a year, suggesting that citizen science could reach beyond the committed membership base of season-pass holders. Most participants also expressed confidence in their ability to identify the behaviours on the ethogram, which the researchers attribute to the deliberately simple design of the observation task.

The study is candid about the limitations of visitor-generated behavioural data. The otters were out of sight of the cameras for 67 percent of video observations, and both visitors and cameras faced blind spots and varying viewing opportunities. Behaviours that were infrequent or complex, such as positive social interactions in the otters or grooming in the giraffe, showed the greatest divergence between the two datasets. The authors stress that their analyses are exploratory descriptions of behavioural occurrence rather than measures of observer accuracy or reliability, and they call for future studies using time-matched designs, cameras positioned to replicate the visitor’s view, and controlled comparisons with trained observers to enable formal inter-rater reliability assessment. Training, structured prompts and simplified measures such as active versus inactive states are proposed as ways to improve data quality.

Beyond the data, the researchers argue, the process itself may deliver benefits that matter to the mission of the modern zoo. Watching animals closely is known to foster empathy and a sense of connectedness, visiting zoos has been linked to improved human wellbeing, and citizen science participation has been associated with gains in scientific understanding. Longer dwell times at exhibits may not automatically translate into learning, but they can deepen the visitor experience and support lasting connections with nature. As biodiversity losses reach unprecedented levels and conservation science becomes an ever more urgent discipline, the authors conclude that engaging zoo visitors in behavioural citizen science deserves far wider consideration, both as a source of data on how animals spend their opening hours and as a pathway to a more empathetic, conservation-minded public.

The study sits within a broader rethinking of what zoos are for. Traditional frameworks described zoos through four pillars of conservation, education, research and recreation, but more recent models have proposed adding a fifth pillar of wellbeing that applies to both animals and people, alongside a ‘sphere of influence’ recognising that zoos operate at local, national and global scales. Within that framing, communicating welfare science to the public is not peripheral but central, since public trust depends heavily on whether visitors believe the animals they are watching are thriving.

Citizen science itself is usually understood as having two distinct strands. In one, the priority is collecting usable data at scale, as in large wildlife monitoring programmes; in the other, the priority is engaging citizens, with data quality a secondary concern. The zoo project deliberately straddled both, and the tension between them explains much of the authors’ caution about the behavioural records. Previous zoo-based citizen science in the UK, such as campaigns encouraging visitors to log native species seen on site, has built ecological awareness but stopped short of fostering connections with the zoo’s own animals, a gap this study sought to address.

The choice of study species was pragmatic rather than incidental. Asian small-clawed otters and Rothschild giraffe were selected because they were consistently visible from public viewing areas, attracted longer dwell times, and could accommodate camera installations allowing simultaneous remote observation. Behavioural research is already the dominant form of zoo science, valued for capturing real-time information about animal experiences at low cost, yet large-scale data collection can be impractical for busy animal care staff. Distributing observation across millions of annual visitors offers one possible solution, provided questions of validity and reliability are resolved.

Earlier work also suggests the timing matters: visitors report more positive experiences and stronger feelings of connection after watching animals, particularly active ones, meaning the observation task itself may amplify the very engagement the projects aim to cultivate.

Subject of Research: Citizen science engagement of zoo visitors in animal behaviour and welfare assessment

Article Title: Exploring citizen science as a tool for engaging zoo visitors with animal welfare

Article References: Stephens, D., Wright, D., Rowden, L., Frost, N., Carter, A., Ward, S. J., & Williams, E. (2026). Exploring citizen science as a tool for engaging zoo visitors with animal welfare. Discover Animals, 3(1), Article 85. https://doi.org/10.1007/s44338-026-00247-2

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: 10.1007/s44338-026-00247-2

Keywords: citizen science, zoos, animal welfare, animal behaviour, Five Domains model, ethogram, visitor engagement, giraffe, Asian small-clawed otter, conservation education, public engagement, affective state

The research, spanning four distinct studies involving approximately 55,000 participants, demonstrates a consistent pattern: when both scientific experts and everyday people align in support of a solution, the public’s willingness to act increases significantly. This effect was observed across a broad spectrum of issues, including climate change policies, electric vehicle adoption, sustainable food sources, vaccination uptake, AI governance, misinformation management, and data privacy concerns.

The study employed rigorous experimental methods, combining online experiments where participants selected between competing policies or products based on the groups endorsing them, with real-world interventions such as charitable donations to nonprofits and engagement with targeted social media advertisements. This mixed-methods approach bolstered the validity of the findings, pointing to a robust psychological mechanism underpinning public action: trust in the concordance of expert and social consensus overrides resistance or skepticism generated by governmental and industrial dissent.

Lead author Anandita Sabherwal noted that these results challenge prevailing notions that institutional failure necessarily leads to public apathy. Instead, the alignment between scientific authorities and the broader community can serve as a potent mobilizing force. This suggests that grassroots and expert coalitions may be key to overcoming stagnation and inertia in confronting environmental, health, and technological crises.

Senior author Gregg Sparkman emphasized the nuance that, although institutions like governments and corporations hold structural power, their failure to act does not equate to a loss of public agency. The data reveal an empowering narrative where the collective voice—scientific and social—fosters meaningful change even without top-down leadership.

Looking ahead, the research team plans to extend these investigations cross-culturally, examining how varying degrees of institutional trust impact the relative influence of experts and citizens globally. Such comparative studies will further elucidate whether the efficacy of combined scientific and social consensus is universally applicable or context-dependent.

This work advances our understanding of societal dynamics in an era marked by institutional distrust and information overload. It underscores the critical role that transparent, joint signaling from credible experts and engaged citizens plays in galvanizing public action on complex challenges, offering a strategic pathway for advocates and policymakers aiming to mobilize change.

Subject of Research: People
Article Title: Combined signals of scientific and social consensus best mobilize action on societal challenges even if government and industry oppose
News Publication Date: 13-Jul-2026
Keywords: public mobilization, scientific consensus, social consensus, environmental policy, health behavior, technology adoption, institutional trust

The study, published in the prestigious journal Nature Human Behavior, combines efforts from a multitude of research institutions, showcasing a collaborative approach to understanding public sentiment toward science. Tim Weninger, a notable contributor to the research and professor at the University of Notre Dame, emphasized the unprecedented nature of this collaborative endeavor in social sciences. This monumental effort highlighted that, contrary to the prevailing belief in a "crisis of trust" in science, a substantial majority of individuals globally exhibit high levels of confidence in scientists.

Among the key findings, researchers noted that 83% of respondents believe that scientists should take it upon themselves to communicate research findings and complex scientific concepts to the public clearly. This desire for engagement underscores a broader expectation that scientists must advocate for transparency and establish a direct line of communication with society. Furthermore, the study found that over half the respondents, approximately 52%, want scientists to have a more influential role in policymaking processes. This reflects a growing recognition of the importance of science-driven policy decisions that can effectively address pressing societal issues like climate change and public health.

Delving deeper into societal shifts, the survey established a connection between demographics and levels of trust in the scientific community. Factors such as gender, age, educational attainment, income level, and urban versus rural residency played crucial roles in shaping perceptions. Notably, trust was observed to be higher among women, older individuals, urban residents, and those with left-leaning political ideologies. Interestingly, the study’s findings challenge preconceived notions that political orientation would consistently influence trust levels; instead, research indicates that such correlations may not be universally applicable across different cultural contexts.

One particularly surprising outcome of the study was the positive correlation between religiosity and trust in science, suggesting that many individuals can reconcile beliefs in science and religion. This finding contests the stereotype of a deep-seated conflict between scientific and religious perspectives, revealing a nuanced landscape in public perceptions of science. Encouragingly, this aspect of the study showcases opportunities for dialogue and collaboration between the scientific community and religious organizations, aiming to promote a shared understanding of factual evidence, especially in times of widespread misinformation.

As the survey shifts its focus to the public’s aspirations for scientists’ roles, it highlights a significant inclination towards addressing global challenges, such as health crises and environmental sustainability. Participants expressed a desire for scientists to prioritize research that enhances public health, alleviates poverty, and tackles energy challenges rather than focusing predominantly on defense-related technologies. This sentiment indicates a clear public appetite for research directed toward social good rather than military advancements, prompting a reevaluation of research funding priorities.

Building upon these findings, the authors of the study argue for a renewed emphasis on scientists’ communication strategies. Enhanced engagement and dialogue between scientists and various public audiences are essential not only to nurture trust but also to cultivate a deeper understanding of scientific processes and findings. The survey advocates for an inclusive approach to science communication, reaching out to diverse demographic groups while paying particular attention to conservative populations in Western nations—an area that has historically seen a significant trust gap in science.

While trust in scientists remains comparatively high, the survey highlights areas for improvement. A significant percentage, around 42%, of respondents felt that scientists are not sufficiently receptive to feedback or open to public input. This insight serves as a warning sign—suggesting that without attentiveness to public sentiment, the fragile bond of trust could face new challenges. Addressing these concerns requires a proactive approach from the scientific community, acknowledging the necessity of active listening and responsiveness to community needs.

The findings from this comprehensive survey illuminate the current landscape of public trust in science against a backdrop of prior studies that previously suggested declining trust levels, particularly in the United States and Europe. The results challenge this narrative by presenting a more optimistic picture of public sentiment. The research encourages scientists to focus on building and fortifying trust through engaging narratives, transparent communication of research, and active participation in matters that resonate with public values and priorities.

In summary, this expansive investigation into the trustworthiness of scientists reinforces the imperative of engagement, communication, and connection between the scientific community and society at large. By embracing an approach grounded in transparency and responsiveness, scientists can enhance their credibility, promote informed public discourse, and foster a culture of collaboration that transcends traditional boundaries.

The implications of this research extend far beyond academic interest; they underscore the critical role scientists play in navigating global challenges and shaping a future that values evidence-based decision-making. As the world faces ongoing issues of climate change, public health crises, and societal disparities, the survey’s findings compel the scientific community to step forward as champions of informed policy and advocates for the common good.

Ongoing public disillusionment with expertise amid the spread of misinformation may make it imperative for scientists to adopt new approaches that prioritize storytelling and emotional resonance in their communication strategies. Engaging the public not just with data but with narratives that resonate on a personal level will be key in maintaining trust and legitimizing the role of science in shaping societal progress.

Ultimately, this study serves as a clarion call for scientists to engage deeply with the communities they serve, reinforcing the importance of dialogue, collaboration, and shared goals. The commitment to fostering trust and understanding relies on recognizing that science doesn’t exist in a vacuum—it thrives in a vibrant ecosystem of communication, education, and proactive outreach. As the scientific community embraces these findings and adapts accordingly, there is hope that greater public engagement will lead to a future where trust in scientists not only persists but flourishes.

Subject of Research: Trust in Scientists
Article Title: Trust in scientists and their role in society across 68 countries
News Publication Date: 20-Jan-2025
Web References: Nature Human Behavior
References: DOI
Image Credits: Photo by Barbara Johnston/University of Notre Dame

Keywords: Trust in science, scientific communication, public engagement, science policy, global perceptions, demographics, societal roles