Abstract
The crisis of trust in science is often overestimated in the public sphere. Nevertheless, trust in science needs to be protected, given the potential harmful consequences of its decline for the cohesion of society.
The paper focuses on trust in medical science and questions where the legal limits are on restrictions on freedom of expression, and what are the possible and appropriate strategies for state responses to the spread of misinformation and disinformation related to health. These strategies can be divided into direct and indirect, while within the direct we can talk about positive and negative.
Direct strategies relate directly to disinformation and disinformation. A negative direct strategy is to limit the reach of such information through prohibitions.
These can have their legitimate place in the defense against harmful information, provided that they comply with constitutional and legal requirements and are applied only in pre-defined and sufficiently specific cases. A positive direct strategy consists in supporting verified sources of information through their promotion and systematic prioritisation.
The indirect strategy essentially means that while creating, interpreting, and applying norms regarding research, the influence on public trust should always be taken into account. Specifically, the indirect support of trust consists mainly in appropriate legislative settings on the benefit-risk ratio in research, the legal liability framework, and the informed consent of the research participant.