This report examines the current state of public confidence in science and explores strategies to integrate citizen participation into research and policy formulation.

本報告研究目前公眾對科學的信心狀況，並探索將公民參與納入研究與政策制定的策略。

Quantitative assessments of global trust in science present a dichotomy. Large-scale data, including a 68-country survey by the TISP project, indicate a moderately high global average of trust, positioning scientists above most other professional cohorts. Conversely, longitudinal data from the United States and United Kingdom reveal emerging fractures. In the U.S., confidence among Republican-leaning demographics has declined significantly, a trend attributed to political re-sorting and the strategic framing of academics as an isolated elite by populist actors. In the U.K., while science remains a primary source of optimism, the proportion of citizens expressing high levels of trust has diminished since 2020, with a notable ideological divergence between the scientific community and the general populace.

對全球科學信任度的量化評估呈現出兩種截然不同的情況。包括 TISP 專案對 68 個國家進行的調查顯示，全球平均信任度處於中高水平，科學家的地位高於大多數其他專業群體。相反，來自美國與英國的縱向數據揭示了 emerging 的裂痕。在美國，傾向共和黨的人群對科學的信心顯著下降，這種趨勢被歸因於政治重新排列，以及民粹主義者將學者刻意描述為孤立精英的策略。

The erosion of trust is frequently catalyzed by the perceived politicization of science, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic. This phenomenon is often a reflection of a broader institutional crisis rather than a specific failure of scientific methodology. The lack of transparency in advisory processes and the perceived disconnect between academic values and those of the public have contributed to this alienation. Consequently, science-based policies, such as vaccination mandates and climate interventions, face increased resistance when they are perceived as top-down impositions by a detached intellectual class.

信任度下降通常是由感知到的科學政治化所觸發，尤其是在 COVID-19 疫情期間。這種現象通常反映了更廣泛的制度危機，而非科學方法本身的失敗。諮詢過程缺乏透明度，以及學術價值觀與公眾價值觀之間被感知到的脫節，都導致了這種疏離感。因此，基於科學的政策（例如強制疫苗接種與氣候干預措施）如果被視為是一個脫離現實的知識分子階層由上而下強加的，將面臨更多反對。

To mitigate these tensions, a transition toward the democratization of science is proposed. This involves the implementation of participatory research models where citizens contribute to setting research priorities and interpreting evidence. Examples include the European Union's Horizon 2020 co-creation process and the use of consensus conferences by the Danish Board of Technology. Such frameworks ensure that scientific inquiry is aligned with societal values and real-world priorities. Furthermore, the integration of Indigenous knowledge and the establishment of formal co-governance bodies are identified as essential for achieving sustainable institutional change.

為了緩解這些緊張關係，建議向科學民主化過渡。這涉及實施參與式研究模式，讓公民參與設定研究優先事項與解釋證據。例子包括歐盟的 Horizon 2020 共同創造過程，以及丹麥技術委員會使用的共識會議。此類框架可確保科學探究與社會價值觀以及現實世界的優先事項保持一致。此外，整合原住民知識與建立正式的共同治理機構，被認為是實現可持續制度變革的關鍵。

Structural reforms within academia and government are necessary to sustain this rapprochement. It is recommended that universities modify promotion criteria to reward co-produced research and that funding agencies mandate public involvement as a default condition for grants. Additionally, the adoption of radical transparency—such as the publication of meeting minutes and the explicit disclosure of the value judgments informing scientific advice—is viewed as a critical mechanism for neutralizing narratives of clandestine policymaking.

學術界與政府內部需要進行結構性改革，才能維持這種和解。建議大學修改晉升標準，以獎勵共同產出的研究，而資助機構則應將公眾參與設定為獲撥款的預設條件。此外，採取激進的透明度措施——例如公布會議記錄以及明確披露影響科學建議的價值判斷——被視為抵消「秘密政策制定」論調的關鍵機制。

While global trust in science remains statistically resilient, significant ideological polarization necessitates a shift toward inclusive, transparent, and participatory scientific practices.

雖然全球對科學的信任在統計上依然強韌，但顯著的意識形態極化意味著必須向包容、透明與參與式的科學實踐轉型。