Topic Index

Election science denial represents a growing threat to democratic institutions, public confidence, and evidence-based decision-making. From an anti-science perspective, it illustrates how political actors and misinformation networks can undermine objective evidence when scientific methods and statistical findings conflict with ideological beliefs. Rather than accepting independently verifiable results, election deniers frequently promote unfounded allegations of fraud, manipulate statistical data, and portray ordinary electoral irregularities as evidence of widespread conspiracies.

Public trust in science has always rested on a fragile compact: scientists investigate the world with rigor and humility, and society, in turn, believes that their conclusions are grounded in evidence rather than ideology or personal gain. In recent years, that compact has frayed. Not because science has suddenly become less reliable, but because the ecosystem that translates scientific work for the public-media outlets, influencers, and celebrity personalities - has increasingly rewarded hype over nuance, certainty over caution, and spectacle over substance.

Overall U.S. trust in science increased slightly, from 76% of those surveyed in 2024 to 77% in 2025, according to the Pew Research Center's annual survey. Scientists ranked as the most trusted profession among all groups Pew asked about. Yet the headline number conceals meaningful turbulence beneath the surface.

A replication crisis occurs when independent researchers are unable to reproduce previously published findings. Replication failure can result from ordinary scientific variability, methodological differences, statistical problems, biased publication practices, questionable research practices, or - in a minority of cases - misconduct.

Public distrust of science is growing, especially concerning specific issues (like health/climate) and among certain political/ideological groups, fueled by misinformation and concerns about scientists' morals or agendas.

Scientific fraud, paper mills, predatory journals, fraudulent participants, and image manipulation represent serious threats to the integrity of scientific research, but they should not be confused with the ~59 crisis. While the replication crisis primarily concerns legitimate research findings that cannot consistently be reproduced, scientific fraud involves the deliberate fabricationMaking up data, results, source materials, or methodologies and recording or reporting them as real. , falsificationManipulating research materials, equipment, or processes, or changing/omitting data so the research is inaccurately represented., or manipulation of research. The distinction is important: a failed replication may reveal weaknesses in scientific methods or evidence, whereas fraud deliberately undermines the research process.