IANUS - Inspiring and Anchoring Trust in Science, Research and Innovation

Combined Expert Workshops on ‘Trust in Science’

2nd May 2023 (~13:00 CEST) – 3rd May 2023 (~13:30 CEST)

Soeterbeeck, Netherlands (Google maps)

Workshop I: 

‘Cooperative Discourse to map the Landscape & Parameters pertaining to ‘Trust in Science’’

Workshop II:

‘Scenario- & Analyses-Planning based on historical Case-Studies’

Follow-Up Zoom Call: Monday, 19th June, 14:00 – 16:00 CEST

Meeting ID: 839 5313 0548
Passcode: 20220601

Synopsis of the combined Workshops

One year after the start of the IANUS project, the team of the ‘Reconnaissance’-work package (WP2) aims to review its initial approach and result of analysing past and ongoing initiatives, mapping the network (i.e. of previous and ongoing projects with a focus on trust) and harvesting information on the state of the art for the project’s conceptual framework (WP3), case studies (WP4) and co-creation (WP5) (incl. policy documents and media debates, engage with the Eurobarometer and other surveys, with a special focus on science communication (state of the art) and stakeholder consultations).

The following questions will be addressed and discussed:

  1. Who or what is the object of trust in science (micro, meso and macro levels): individual researchers (as persons or as representatives of some field or research), research organisations (can be different institutions around science, science as a system
  2. What is involved in trust – a positive feeling towards the trustee as well as hope that the trustee will fulfil the trustor’s expectations. Which expectations does trust in science involve, taking into that the trustee can be a person, an institution, science as a system or a product of science.
  3. What makes the object trustworthy? Which expectations does trust involve? Does it involve only a positive feeling about the trustee (A trusts B globally), or a three-place trust (A trusts B to C). In case of trust in science one can trust the scientist to tell the truth, or to be ethical (have researcher’s integrity), or to trust that the scientist is benevolent.
  4. Which other influences (i.e. cultural, regional, historical, political, socio-economic, demographic) or biases need to be taken into account, when analysing (and possibly comparing) ‘trust in science’?
Synopsis - Day 1

Day 1 of the workshop aims to better define the reasons for and characteristics of trust and distrust in science: invited experts are asked to join one of two breakout groups (i.e. (1) Agent ‘Trust’, or (2) Agent ‘Distrust’), in order to prepare the arguments that are likely to be used by each group in the subsequent ‘cooperative discourse’ workshop.[1]

[1] The IANUS organisation team reserves the right to ask specific experts to change teams, in the case of pronounced unbalancing of the two groups.

Synopsis - Day 2

Day 2 of the workshop aims to apply the results of the previous day (i.e. the arguments heard and the debate held during the discourse) to plan and refine the in-depth analyses of IANUS historical Case-Studies (i.e. past cases, in which scientific topics have been discussed in public and evoked (dis)trust). The preliminary results of least one historical IANUS Case-Study (i.e. on ‘Genome Editing’), will be presented, in order to provide the experts with an overview of the data available (e.g. survey data), analyses done, and parameters taken into consideration.

More Information about the Workshop Venue

Conference Centre Soeterbeeck


Seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand.

[Saint Augustine]

The above quote from saint Augustine does not uncontroversially relate to the topic of our meeting – trust in science. Still, the church father also wrote: “The world is a book and those who do not travel read only one page”. It was Augistine’s philosophy that formed the guiding rule for the community of women that lived and worked at the Soeterbeeck convent.

Conference center Soeterbeeck is a former convent of the Augustinian order of Windesheim. Their community originally established a convent at the river Dommel in Nuenen around 1450, but by January 1732 the Augustinian sisters were forced to leave their old accommodation due to floodings of the Dommel. They bought a small manor house owned by the ‘van den Broeck’ barristers den Bogaert in Deursen, near Ravenstein. The estate and its buildings were expanded and renovated several times over the centuries.

The oldest wing of the current complex dates from 1733. The neo-Gothic chapel was added in 1906 and underwent a major modernization in the 1960s. Authentic parts of the interior, such as the choir stalls and the organ, were preserved. The convent was gifted to Radboud University Nijmegen in the late 1990s to provide the university a place removed from all the hustle and bustle of everyday academic life. The complex recently it underwent a complete renovation. It is located on the edge of the fortified town of Ravenstein, less than half an hour from Nijmegen. The center is easily accessible by public transport (train) and by car.


By train

A train to Ravenstein departs twice an hour from both ‘s-Hertogenbosch (if coming from Schiphol) and Nijmegen (if coming from the East). For the exact departure and arrival times of the train at Ravenstein station, you can consult the NS travel planner: https://www.ns.nl/en/journeyplanner/#/

Conference Center Soeterbeeck is about a 10-minute walk from Ravenstein station and can be reached via the Stationspad, which is located at the back of the station.


By car

Ravenstein is located on the A50 Arnhem – Den Bosch, about twenty kilometers south of Nijmegen. On the A50, both from the direction of Den Bosch and from the direction of Arnhem, take the Ravenstein exit (exit 17). From Den Bosch, turn left at the bottom of the exit and then left again towards Ravenstein. You will now drive under the A50 motorway and go straight on at the roundabout.

From Arnhem you drive three quarters around the roundabout at the bottom of the exit. Go straight on at the next roundabout.

When you have passed under the railway viaduct, you will see Soeterbeeck on your left. At the next roundabout, take the third exit (De Rijt) and then take the first left again (Elleboogstraat). You will now enter the Soeterbeeck car park through the entrance gate.



Elleboogstraat 2

5352 LP Deursen-Dennenburg



++31(0)24 – 36 15 999

PLEASE NOTE: In the interest of reaching the workshop’s aim, experts are discouraged from re-inventing the wheel, questioning the nature or descriptions of the groups, and philosophising about the different forms of (dis)trust and their correct English terminology.[1]

If a group feels that it has agree on or define certain specifics, before it can tackle the task at hand, such specifics should be documented by the group and clearly communicated before the discourse debate.

[1] Definitions and perceptions of aspects pertaining to ‘(dis)trust in science’ and any associated adjectives used in combination with the terms differ widely. IANUS has conducted its own conceptualisation work.

Preliminary Agenda

Day 1 (Tuesday, 2nd May 2023)

12:30 – 13:30

Lunch Reception, Arrival & Registration

13:30 – 14:00

Welcome & Introduction to the combined Workshop


Speaker: Hub Zwart

14:00 – 15:00

Tour-de-Table & General Discussion of broader Issues

  1. History: Why are we still talking about trust in science after 50 years?
  2. Impact & unique role of the pandemic: Has the pandemic changed the very nature of science in society?

Moderator: George Gaskell

Coffee Break in Breakout Groups

16:30 – 18:00

Cooperative Discourse Debate with a view to drafting policy recommendations to build bridges between Trust & Distrust in Science

Moderator: Steffi Friedrichs

18:00 – 18:20

Close of Day 1 & Sneak-Preview of Day 2

Speaker: Laurens Landeweerd


Day 2 (Wednesday, 3rd May 2023)

09:00 – 09:30

Recap of Day 1 & Welcome and Introduction to Day 2


Speaker: Laurens Landeweerd

09:30 – 10:00

Presentation of initial Results from the IANUS Historical Case-Studies

  1. climate change
  2. artificial intelligence
  3. genome editing

Moderator: Steffi Friedrichs

10:00 – 11:00

Discussion of initial Results from the IANUS Historical Case-Studies

  1. Defining additional Analyses
  2. Defining additional complementary Scenarios (to be analysed)

Moderator: George Gaskell

11:00 – 11:30

Coffee Break

15:15 – 16:30

Group Work in two ‘Agent’-Breakout Groups

Group 1: Agent ‘Trust’

Group 2: Agent ‘Distrust’

Characteristics of an agent for trust in science and/or scientific systems/conduct

-Trust may be both ‘valid’/’warranted’ and/or ‘invalid’/unwarranted’

-Trust in (some) scientists and/or scientific systems

-Trust in (some) scientific results

Characteristics of distrust in science and/or scientific systems/conduct

-Distrust may be both ‘valid’/’warranted’ and/or ‘invalid’/’unwarranted’

-Distrust may concern science, scientists, or scientific systems/conduct

Moderator: Amalia Kallergi

Moderator: Laurens Landeweerd

11:30 – 12:45

… continues:

Discussion of initial Results from the IANUS Historical Case-Studies

Moderator: George Gaskell

12:45 – 13:00

Close of Day 2 & of the Combined Workshop

  1. Next steps

Speaker: Laurens Landeweerd

13:00 – 14:00

Lunch & Departure