Science, Silence, and Public Trust

The Nature Neuroscience commentary “Science must break its silence to rebuild public trust” (Miller et al., 2025) offers a powerful examination of the growing divide between scientific institutions and the public they aim to serve. This commentary argues that the erosion of public trust is not merely a sociopolitical phenomenon but also a consequence of insufficient communication, limited engagement, and a historical scientific culture that undervalues public-facing discourse. The authors contend that, although scientific achievements have transformed global health and everyday life, scientists themselves have not consistently maintained meaningful dialogue with the communities who ultimately benefit from their work.

Biofeedback and neurofeedback professionals will find this conversation particularly relevant. Both fields rely on clear explanations, collaborative communication, and public understanding of scientific mechanisms—especially when working with clients navigating uncertainty in mental health, performance, and well-being. Biofeedback involves providing individuals with real-time information about physiological processes such as heart rate or respiration, whereas neurofeedback focuses specifically on brain activity measured via EEG. Both approaches depend on trust: trust in the science, the clinician, and the methods guiding change.

Beyond their clinical value, these techniques also reflect broader themes in neuroscience: the importance of learning, self-regulation, and the brain’s ability to adapt. As the commentary highlights, public skepticism often emerges not from scientific disagreement but from narratives shaped by political polarization, inaccessible communication, or a lack of transparency. In areas like neurofeedback, where public understanding varies widely and misconceptions persist, the relationship between science and society becomes even more critical.

This introduction lays the foundation for a deeper exploration of how the commentary authors diagnose the problem of declining trust, the historical and cultural factors shaping it, and their proposed path forward. By connecting these ideas to the practical realities of applied neuroscience, this review highlights the essential role of communication in ensuring that evidence-based approaches remain accessible, credible, and beneficial to the communities they aim to support.

Key observations

First, the authors identify a persistent and widening disconnect between the scientific community and the broader public. Despite extraordinary scientific achievements, from antibiotics and organ transplantation to genome sequencing and brain–computer interfaces, the commentary argues that the cultural and political landscape has shifted in ways that undermine public confidence. Scientific progress alone is no longer sufficient to secure trust.

Second, the authors highlight how scientific institutions have inadvertently contributed to this erosion. By retreating from public engagement, emphasizing internal metrics such as publications and grants, and failing to effectively counter misinformation, the scientific community has left a vacuum that has been filled by polarized narratives. The commentary suggests that this absence of visible scientific leadership has allowed ideological actors to frame science as elitist, politically biased, or disconnected from everyday concerns.

Third, the authors emphasize that self-imposed isolation within academia reduces the ability of science to adapt to public needs. Scientists often assume that expertise alone justifies trust and that presenting accurate information will inevitably persuade. However, the commentary underscores that trust is relational; built through dialogue, reciprocity, and transparency rather than unilateral dissemination.

Finally, the authors propose that rebuilding trust will require a cultural shift in how scientists view their responsibilities. Communication, advocacy, and public engagement are not distractions but essential extensions of scientific rigor and reproducibility. The commentary concludes that scientists must step beyond traditional boundaries, connecting with communities, listening to diverse perspectives, and participating directly in public discourse, to rebuild durable, meaningful trust.

Discussion

The commentary offers several important contributions to understanding the erosion of public trust in science, particularly within the cultural and institutional contexts of the United States. It highlights how communication gaps, political polarization, and public disengagement intersect with the scientific community’s historically limited approach to public interaction. The authors argue that while scientific achievements have accelerated, the relational foundation between science and society has weakened.

One central insight is the recognition that scientific culture itself has played a role. The longstanding ethos of humility and quiet excellence—valued internally—has resulted in limited external communication. While these norms foster rigor, they can also reinforce perceptions that scientists are distant, opaque, or elitist. This disconnect is amplified by the modern media landscape, where misinformation spreads rapidly and emotional narratives often overshadow scientific nuance.

Another important theme is the failure to acknowledge uncertainty openly. By not communicating the iterative, self-corrective nature of science, scientists may inadvertently reinforce the misconception that scientific conclusions are rigid or dogmatic. When revisions occur, as they naturally do, this can fuel skepticism or the belief that experts are inconsistent.

The commentary also raises concerns about professional incentives that prioritize publications and funding over public engagement. These structural pressures make it difficult for scientists to dedicate time and effort to sustained outreach, despite its importance. Meanwhile, anti-science campaigns, often well-funded and strategically organized, exploit these gaps to shape public opinion.

Ultimately, the authors argue for a paradigm shift: science must re‑engage actively with society through open dialogue, humility, and reciprocity. Trust will not be restored through information alone but through connection and shared meaning. These insights have significant implications for applied neuroscience, where patient relationships, education, and communication are central to effective care.

Brendan's Perspective

Public Trust in Science and Neurofeedback

A recurring theme in both neuroscience and clinical practice is that trust is never granted automatically; it is earned through presence, clarity, and consistency. Neurofeedback sits uniquely at the intersection between cutting-edge neuroscience and deeply personal therapeutic work. This means that, for many people encountering neurofeedback for the first time, trust in the method is inseparable from trust in the practitioner. When public trust in science weakens, as Miller and colleagues describe, the ripple effect touches every applied neuroscience field. People become less sure whom to believe, what evidence looks like, or how to distinguish a skilled clinician from a persuasive advertisement.

In my clinical experience, conversations about neurofeedback often begin with a mix of curiosity and caution. Clients frequently arrive with misunderstandings shaped by sensationalized media, commercial overstatements, or oversimplified narratives that promise results without context or nuance. In this landscape, rebuilding trust requires taking the time to explain mechanisms, not in an abstract academic way, but through relatable examples and transparent discussions. Trust grows when clients feel informed, not sold to, and when they see that neuroscience can be both evidence-based and deeply human.

Communication Challenges in Applied Neuroscience

Effective communication is not merely an add-on to practice; it is part of the intervention itself. Neurofeedback depends on learning, self-awareness, and sustained engagement. If clients misunderstand what they are learning or what is expected of them, their outcomes suffer. As the commentary argues, the scientific community sometimes defaults to silence or overly technical explanations, and we see the same tension clinically.

Applied neuroscience requires translating complex neural processes into intuitive language. This does not mean oversimplifying; it means contextualizing. For instance, instead of describing sensorimotor rhythm training only in terms of 12–15 Hz oscillatory modulation, we bridge the explanation to its functional meaning: steadiness, behavioural inhibition, and the capacity to stay in the moment. This form of communication empowers clients, reinforces engagement, and mirrors the broader call for science to speak clearly and responsively.

Misconceptions About Neurofeedback and Scientific Literacy

Neurofeedback may be one of the most misunderstood tools in mental health and performance training. Some expect it to work like medication—fast and automatic—while others fear it alters the brain unnaturally. Both beliefs stem from the same root: limited public scientific literacy, combined with an absence of clear, accessible explanations.

The commentary’s point about the dangers of silence resonates strongly here. Without clinicians speaking clearly and consistently, misinformation rushes in to fill the void. Explaining that neurofeedback leverages learning, operant conditioning, voluntary self-regulation, and neuroplasticity, helps demystify the process. It brings the conversation back to the brain’s natural capacity to adapt.

When clients understand that neurofeedback is not “installing” new patterns, but strengthening existing ones, resistance softens. When they learn that EEG is descriptive, not mind-reading, anxiety drops. Increasing scientific literacy in small, relational moments counteracts the broader societal challenges highlighted by the authors.

Bridging Research and Community

One of the commentary’s strongest arguments is that communication must become a shared responsibility across all scientific disciplines. In neurofeedback, that responsibility is even more pronounced because the science is still evolving. The gap between what research can say with confidence and what the public wants to know is often wide.

To bridge that gap, clinicians can act as translators between research and lived experience. This means acknowledging uncertainties (“We know this works well for many people, but the time course varies”), and clarifying what research findings actually mean (“This protocol improved attention on standardized tests, which often relates to better daily functioning, but it isn’t a universal outcome”). Honesty builds trust, and trust strengthens outcomes.

Ethical Responsibility in Biofeedback and Neurofeedback

The commentary raises concerns about how silence can leave space for misleading or manipulative messaging. This idea is crucial in neurofeedback ethics. Because neurofeedback is not yet uniformly regulated, practitioners must hold themselves to a high ethical standard—one rooted in accuracy, humility, and transparency.

Ethical responsibility includes:

• avoiding exaggerated claims

• explaining limitations clearly

• grounding practices in established neuroscience

• providing individualized, evidence-informed care

When ethics guide communication, trust naturally follows.

Operator-Dependent Nature of Neurofeedback

Research increasingly shows what clinicians have known for decades: neurofeedback is operator-dependent. The commentary’s critique of scientific culture—particularly its undervaluing of interpersonal communication—directly parallels this challenge. Even the most sophisticated equipment cannot compensate for poor explanation, insufficient attunement, or a lack of individualized strategy.

Operator-dependent does not mean subjective or unreliable. It means that the clinician shapes the learning environment—through cue selection, reinforcement timing, state management, and emotional context. In this sense, neurofeedback is no different from psychotherapy or physiotherapy: technique matters, but relationship and skill amplify its impact.

Balancing Humility and Confidence in Clinical Neuroscience

Miller and colleagues call for scientists to embrace humility—acknowledging uncertainty while communicating confidently. In clinical practice, we strike a similar balance. Clients need courage from us, but not arrogance; clarity, but not absolutism.

Humility sounds like:

• “Here is what we know so far.”

• “Your brain is learning, and learning unfolds at its own pace.”

• “Let’s adjust your protocol based on your experience.”

Confidence sounds like:

• “This protocol is appropriate for your symptoms and profile.”

• “Your progress is consistent with what we expect for this type of training.”

• “There is strong evidence for these mechanisms.”

Holding both at once creates safety, honesty, and stability—conditions essential for therapeutic learning.

Multidisciplinary Integration as Communication Strategy

The commentary highlights the need to communicate across divides. In clinical neuroscience, multidisciplinary collaboration is one of the strongest ways to build coherence for clients and colleagues alike. Neurofeedback integrates naturally with psychotherapy, speech therapy, occupational therapy, psychiatry, physiotherapy, and educational interventions.

When communication flows between disciplines, clients gain a unified understanding of their treatment. This not only strengthens trust but also models the collaborative spirit that the commentary calls for on a societal scale.

Where does Neurofeedback Fit Among Psychotherapy and Pharmacotherapy?

Stay tuned... I have an article in press that I hope will help answer this question. Neurofeedback is not a replacement for psychotherapy or medication, nor is it merely an optional add-on. It occupies a distinct, complementary position. It addresses brain function directly, through learning-based mechanisms, while psychotherapy targets cognition, behaviour, and emotional understanding, and pharmacotherapy modulates neurochemical activity.

Understanding these distinctions helps clients make informed decisions and strengthens confidence in a multimodal approach. As the commentary argues, clear explanations create informed citizens—and, in our case, informed clients.

Conclusion

The Nature Neuroscience commentary underscores a critical reality: scientific progress cannot thrive without public trust. For fields like biofeedback and neurofeedback, where understanding and engagement are integral to therapeutic success, this message is particularly urgent. Rebuilding trust requires more than accurate information; it demands transparency, humility, dialogue, and the willingness to meet people where they are.

By integrating these principles into clinical practice—through clear explanations, ethical communication, multidisciplinary collaboration, and individualized neurofeedback protocols—we contribute not only to better outcomes but to a healthier scientific culture. The bridge between science and society is built one conversation at a time, and every interaction in clinical neuroscience becomes an opportunity to reinforce that connection.

Rebuilding trust is not merely a scientific task; it is a human one. And when science speaks openly, listens deeply, and engages sincerely, trust becomes not a barrier but a pathway—one that strengthens the impact of our work and the well-being of those we serve.

References

Miller, C. T., Basso, M. A., Batista, A. P., Gothard, K. M., Parker, K. J., Tsao, D. Y., Williams, Z. M., & Platt, M. L. (2025). Science must break its silence to rebuild public trust. Nature Neuroscience, 28, 2169–2170. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41593-025-02092-0