On the Struggle for Trust

In the age of information abundance, the crisis of trust in science is usually attributed to misinformation, polarization, or declining scientific literacy. This talk offers a different diagnosis. In the Odyssey, the Sirens did not persuade with arguments but with irresistible songs. Likewise, science today competes in an environment where attractiveness often precedes truth. The human sciences show that people are naturally drawn to certainty, simplicity, emotion, and compelling narratives before evaluating evidence. The challenge for science communication is therefore not simply to earn trust, but to remain epistemically rigorous while becoming psychologically and communicatively ‘beautiful’.

At a time when humanity is facing major challenges against a backdrop of worrying democratic erosion, the ability to agree on what can be regarded as true is crucial to effective collective action. Yet, despite centuries of consolidation of scientific processes, ‘truth’ is now undermined by post-truth, conspiracy theories, agnotological endeavours and attention-grabbing algorithms. AI is accelerating this destabilisation, exacerbating our overall epistemic vulnerability.
This existential challenge for scientific communication necessitates the mediation of the conditions under which knowledge is produced and validated, and not merely that of scientific content. Beyond the ritualistic and often ineffective call for ‘critical thinking’, it requires a serious investment in the philosophy of knowledge and the Science and Technology Studies (STS) discipline, as well as a critical culture of AI – all of which are essential prerequisites for trust in scientific institutions.

For CERN, abandoning the Future Circular Collider amounts to a blow to fundamental research; it is tantamount to opposing science. Yet the construction and operation of the two colliders would be accompanied by massive greenhouse gas emissions. Yet the science of climate scientists is clear: every additional tonne of CO₂ in the atmosphere accelerates our slide towards the unthinkable.

The ‘consultation’ on the FCC, launched in May 2026 in the Geneva region, was intended to address the many questions raised by the mega-project. One major omission from the documentation provided: the climate.

Three weeks before the end of the ‘consultation’, I will draw up an interim assessment and analyse what, in this series of events, has either bolstered or undermined the public’s trust in ‘science’.