Scientists – Creative Pathfinders or Alarmists

For some reason we are never seen as having the knowledge and to be followed by the masses. As long as democratic systems are in place the scientist will just be the unsung heroes. South Africa

If we don’t see scientists as thought leaders, we will be on the way to becoming cavemen once again. United States

Without scientists there is no human growth and no technology advances, the world would become stagnant. Australia

As long as the general education level is high enough for the general population to hear and understand scientists there is hope. Unfortunately , the recent pandemic has shown how low the general scientific education is. Canada

The overall trend will continue to be towards trustworthy thought leaders, even in the face of recent waves of hysteria and misinformation.  Galileo was right, even if it took 100 years for people to recognize it. Science has been  moving ahead and will continue to do so. The barriers are many (misinformation, one-sided funding of research with attached agendas, suppression of scientific thoughts by organizations), but science will win. Eventually. United States

People haven’t trusted experts since the late 1960’s and the Vietnam war and it’s just got worse as certain people feel that it is a technocratic elite talking down to us. United Kingdom

I cannot envision a world without experts and scientists. certainly they are beginning to recognize that part of their role as thought leaders isn’t just being smart, but being good communicators and articulators. Within 20 years I believe we will have significantly more Michio Kakus and a lot less elitist arrogant scientists. And the world will be better because of that. United States

[ed] Kakus is a Japanese-American theoretical physicist, activist, futurologist, and popular science writer..

They will continue to be trustworthy. But would have been far more so if they were genuinely interested in alleviating globally-faced issues and less of academic one-up-man-ship India

Scientific thought and ideas have been under attack. Even during the pandemic. Making the innovations relevant to people is key. A few medical professionals were able to do that well during the pandemic, while others continue to speak in a language that most people didn’t understand. India

Unfortunately, I think scientists are going to be largely untrusted due to politics and mass media influence. United Kingdom

It clear during Covid and Brexit and Climate change events,  that politicians used scientists to present their version of truth. If scientists spoke out of line they quickly became figures to be attacked. If public rely on these same politicians and press for their information, then scientists will not be trusted unless they agree with whatever the politicians say. This will lead to a further loss of trust in scientists. United Kingdom

Scientists typical follow the Scientific Method – hypothesis, empirical data, statistical testing, peer review. Yet we read where papers are later disputed. Some scientists are weak and will falsify data and findings to remain playing the game. They harm the reputation of the principled scientists who are true thought leaders.  Science sadly is a political affair. Research is often publicly funded. Private funding can be controversial; some scientists will offer an opinion just to support and satisfy their right or left-wing lords. Canada

Many will remain thought leaders. Most, however, will remain in the background. Scientists will remain trustworthy even though a few bad apples show up from time to time. Research is growing to be multi- and trans-disciplinary, requiring the field of science to address real-world problems including wicked problems (e.g., global warming, malnutrition). United States

Pure sciences to expand knowledge will lose traction. Technology- and people-centric scientists might become thought leaders. India

I struggle with this one because I really value academic papers and studies, however often I find them somewhat academic and not in touch with what its really like to go to work.  The theory and practice can be far apart.  Overall needs to be more integration between work life and academia. United Kingdom

The challenge to authority & knowledge will keep growing. Scientists will need to develop new strategies.  France

Scientists will in best case get more place through better leaders, but they are mostly busy and not interested to lead. Sweden

There is little evidence that science will progress faster than one funeral at a time. It will remain largely tribal and traditional. Following money rather than leading progress. Indonesia

The social media is pushing people to judging instead of thinking. Except breaking through discoveries, the popularity of scientist will depend on whether he/she is capable of grasping your eyeball quickly. In another word, more actor/actress instead of a scientist. China

As distrust of social media grows, greater emphasis may come back to more independent forms of media and people such as academics and researchers who attempt to present a perspective which is less influenced by commercial/government interests. Australia

This is related to social media channels fact checking or allowing open speech (including lies). This isn’t about them as much as it is about the social commentary they work within.  Go back to the polio and mumps vaccines in the 1960’s, these were community events where people stood in line together to receive them (as a child I recall waiting with my parents) – it was a social commentary of the greater good taking care of each other. This message has changed from the social construct, not the scientific one. United States

I am being very optimistic here. I think as learning models change. people will come to understand that all of life is a game of managing uncertainty. Science offers a structured way to explore this uncertainty. Those scientists who adopt the role of pundit in the public eye will probably be seen as not reliable sources compared to those whose work brings them in reluctantly (and who will therefore describe the uncertainties and not offer predictions [no irony here since this is my role in this survey!]) United Kingdom

Because of populism, scientists are now pressured and studies are easily set aside. There are many studies and they sometimes contradict each other, which does not help confidence. Context and good databases of research data are crucial in this. As the value of scientific research is shown more in the coming years, there will be a revaluation of this. Netherlands

They will continue to be seen as thought leaders, but fallible. As we saw during the pandemic, experts had sharply divergent views on what needed to be done. If we expect science to deliver a unified message on important matters, we will be disappointed. India

They will continue to play an important role on society. But there will be lesser numbers of them since a lot of research will be done by AI assistants! India

Scientists may be gatekeepers in a world where AI does much of the research. The ‘scientist’ might be more a marketing person or a translator than a scientist in the current sense of the word. United States

We still need brains that think outside and beyond border. They hopefully will become faster and have more impact with all the new tools that we will have and use. Switzerland

Scientists are still regarded as thought leaders but more people from the public will also emerge as leaders due to the open science movements.  Hong Kong

We are seeing an opening up of Research papers, with the removal of pay gates. Ireland

Scientists are the explorers of humanity.  While technology will make some scientists seem not trustworthy while technology overtakes current scientist knowledge, this will ultimately change as scientists re baseline capability in partnership with technology.  There is a risk however that social media and digital communication creates digital echo chambers for their own ideas where facts don’t matter and only what people believe. The future pillars of government may need a science stream to complement the legal and government pillars to be responsible for the government position on a particular item such as climate change. Australia

Will scientists need to be protected? I recall the way they were chased and publicly dismissed during the pandemic. Switzerland