Matt Burgess published an essay in Dialogues on Climate Change in June, titled ‘Toward institutional neutrality in climate change science‘. He argued that the erosion of public trust in science in the United States is partly because people view scientific institutions as unduly politicized and that securing ‘institutional neutrality’ is part of the solution. In my invited commentary on Burgess’s essay, I push this argument a little further by arguing that institutional neutrality should be accompanied by individual viewpoint diversity.

Abstract. Burgess’s essay in defence of institutional neutrality addresses the very specific political culture that prevails in the United States. I agree with his defence, certainly for publicly funded institutions. But ensuring institutional neutrality is only part of how to regain public trust in climate change science. In this short commentary, I make an additional point: political neutrality at an institutional level must be backed by an institution’s commitment to promoting and protecting individual viewpoint diversity. Indeed, an institution’s neutrality can perhaps best be preserved by encouraging the widest range of individual viewpoint diversity among its members.