A citizens workgroup helps researchers reflect on their work

In our transdisciplinary project (http://www.transens.de) several academic disciplines work on questions and solutions for high-level nuclear waste disposal in Germany. Adding to this interdisciplinary setting, in our sub-project on trust, we have enlisted a group of 16 citizens (citizens workgroup, CWG), reflecting with us on our research with regard to research questions and approaches. In this talk, we present results from a joint workshop of researchers and the CWG on the role of trust in scientists. We want to understand how participants perceive and relate to science and how this may affect trust in scientists and experts. During a first workshop (conducted online in March 2021), the CWG members were allocated to three breakout groups (1)–(3) to discuss three guiding questions: a. What expectations do you have of a scientist from Social Sciences and Humanities (SSH)/Natural Sciences and Engineering (NSE) in the TRANSENS project? b. What characterizes a scientist from SSH/NSE that you trust? c. What would have to happen for you to no longer trust him/her? The group in breakout room (1) was asked to answer questions (a)–(c) for a fictitious SSH researcher. The group in breakout room (2) was asked to do the same for a fictitious NSE researcher. The group in breakout room (3) was asked whether they perceived differences in the trust of SSH and NSE researchers. For SSH we found that a scientist should be sympathetic and non-condescending, represent a neutral point of view, and consider all opinions. Remarkably, discussants in this group struggled to define a role for SSH scientists in high-level waste disposal research. Some participants ascribed SSH a moderating or mediating role. If necessary (e.g. communication of results), mediation between the NSE and the public can be added. SSH scientists may train other scientists with regard to their performance. Participants stated that scientists from NSE should present information in full and clarify the current state of research (provisional nature of knowledge acknowledged). A scientist should not conceal any information, uncertainties, or risks, be neutral and objective, have experience in the field (professionalism, experience, reputation), and not exclusively reproduce one's own opinion or spread untruths. In all groups, participants judged the NSE as “harder”, more serious and more tangible. It was also discussed that the scientist's appearance is of great importance and that a scientist can “pick up” the audience in an exciting way when communicating. Personal experience was mentioned several times in all groups as a basis for trust. These results match findings on the effect of value similarity (Siegrist et al., 2000, and own survey in 2020 in Germany): If a person is perceived as advocating similar values, it is more likely that I trust that person. Personal experience of – among other issues – similar values may increase trust. Moreover, and importantly, trust also emerges when participants know exactly how issues will be considered, e.g. if input from the CWG is considered or not – and if not: why? In general, participants want to be taken seriously. Thus, transparent and binding rules for all participants may be key for a relationship of trust.