{
  "$type": "site.standard.document",
  "bskyPostRef": {
    "cid": "bafyreie6g4rws4wcw6oplh7ma2lqptmzhcw6hmh5kutixf5qr5jk57u7ra",
    "uri": "at://did:plc:2gbt2dlwaqovtnmxkat3tyke/app.bsky.feed.post/3mf27purjhyg2"
  },
  "coverImage": {
    "$type": "blob",
    "ref": {
      "$link": "bafkreihusqe2nlkj3kp23qo5cjq53uizo7rijzfcqhfpo43mkdcyr5bm3y"
    },
    "mimeType": "image/jpeg",
    "size": 185934
  },
  "path": "/articles/d41586-026-00467-2",
  "publishedAt": "2026-02-17T09:08:53.651Z",
  "site": "https://www.nature.com",
  "tags": [
    "doi:10.1038/d41586-026-00467-2"
  ],
  "textContent": "Nature, Published online: 16 February 2026; doi:10.1038/d41586-026-00467-2\n\nMeasuring trust isn’t enough. Furthering knowledge about the institutions and norms of science is the best way to build credibility.",
  "title": "Why we don’t really know what the public thinks about science",
  "updatedAt": "2026-02-16T00:00:00.000Z"
}