Sharing failures helps to build trust in science communication

Originally posted on The Horizons Tracker.

A few years ago, research¹ from the University of Pennsylvania’s Annenberg Public Policy Center found that just 4% of science-related stories featured any kind of failure or mistakes. This is despite nearly all of the stories featuring a description of the scientific process each study went through.

Obviously, this is a problem for science in general, and movements like Open Notebook Science aim to encourage researchers to share their findings, regardless of whether they succeeded or not. These movements exist because journals rarely publish failed studies, yet these failures are often as important for other researchers to build on as successes are.

Building trust

Disclosing the false starts science makes is also crucial for building trust in science. That’s the finding of research² from the University of Michigan, which showed how valuable it is when researchers share their struggles and their failures when it comes to building trust with the public.

The study found that when researchers are transparent about the slings and arrows of scientific fortune on social media, the public has a much more favorable perception of them. They’re viewed as being more relatable and honest, as well as more caring in general, when they highlight the missteps they make in their work.

This has a direct impact on the likelihood that people will actively look for science-related information or support funding and policies for the sciences.

Presenting science

The researchers wanted to understand how scientists present themselves online, and in particular on social media. The posts were analyzed specifically through the lens of whether they discussed successful research or research that had failed in some way. The audience was then measured to gauge their perceptions around the competence, openness, integrity, and benevolence of the scientist.

The researchers quizzed nearly 2,000 adults from across the United States, with each volunteer shown simulated social media content from a fictional scientist. Some of the volunteers saw self-promotional content about successful research. Others were shown content about research that was unsuccessful, while a third group saw a mixture of content that also contained the researcher’s struggles during their study.

The results clearly show that researchers who were willing and able to share some of their failures alongside their successes were viewed as more open and benevolent, as well as having greater integrity than their peers who only shared their successes. What’s more, being open about one’s failures also didn’t diminish how competent researchers were perceived to be, which undermines one of the main reasons researchers might not want to open up about their failures.

“Our findings suggest that people don’t necessarily see failure as incompetence,” the researchers explain. “Instead, they interpret openness about failure as honesty and even strength.”

Making it personal

Often on social media, we’re told that personalizing things can help get our message across. That people want to hear about the real us. Interestingly, the study found that this didn’t really make too much difference. Instead, when researchers shared personal stories of the challenges involved in science, such as securing the right data or getting funding, they were viewed more negatively by people.

The researchers believe that there are likely a couple of psychological factors underpinning why self-presentation works. The first is that we expect scientists to be polished and refined, so when they’re a bit more “human”, we’re better able to relate to them as people. This made it easier to form an emotional connection with the individual.

“When scientists show they’re human, the public listens,” the researchers say.

This insight couldn’t be more timely. In an age marked by misinformation, declining institutional trust, and polarized debates over everything from climate change to vaccines, scientists face a communication challenge that can’t be solved by data alone. Facts are necessary, but not sufficient. What builds trust, as this study shows, is transparency—not just about results, but about the process itself, warts and all.

Part of the journey

Reframing failure as part of the journey, rather than something to be hidden or overcome in silence, may feel risky in professional circles where prestige still hinges on polished outcomes. But for a public that increasingly values authenticity, that vulnerability can be a strength. It humanizes science and scientists, making both more approachable and relatable.

The findings also offer a hopeful blueprint. Instead of feeling pressure to market only their successes, researchers can share the reality of their work with confidence that doing so won’t damage their reputation—in fact, it might just enhance it. By embracing the full narrative of science, including its detours and dead ends, they not only demystify their work but invite people along for the ride.

In the end, fostering trust in science isn’t just about communicating better results—it’s about communicating the reality of how those results come to be. That means welcoming the messy, uncertain, and deeply human parts of the process. Because when scientists let us see behind the curtain, we’re more likely to believe in what’s on the stage.

Article source: Sharing Failures Helps To Build Trust In Science Communication.

Header image source: Created by Bruce Boyes with Perchance AI Photo Generator.

References: