ArticlePNAS nexus2025
Public perceptions of AI science and scientists relatively more negative but less politicized than general and climate science.
Article in PNAS nexus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Using a weighted 2023-2025 national probability panel of US adults, we compared the perceived Credibility, Prudence, Unbiasedness, Self-Correction, and Benefit (i.e. Factors Assessing Science's Self-Presentation [FASS]) of AI scientists with those of scientists in general and climate scientists in particular. Our analysis reveals that respondents' composite perceptions of AI scientists are the most negative of the three, a difference driven by a facet of the Prudence factor, specifically the perception that AI science is causing unintended consequences; political ideology and patterns of media exposure are substantially more predictive of perceptions of climate science and science in general than of AI; and FASS and respondent ideology predict more variance in support for federal funding of the other two than of AI.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.