Table Of Contents
Trusting What We Can’t Understand
We’re living in an age where complexity surrounds us, yet we’ve developed an odd relationship with it. Most of us can’t explain how our smartphones work, but we’ll trust them with our most private conversations.
We don’t understand the algorithms that manage our superannuation funds, yet we sleep soundly knowing they’re supposedly working in our favor.
This isn’t really about technology, though. It’s about a fundamental shift in how we navigate a world that’s become too complex for any individual to fully grasp. The real question isn’t whether we can understand everything – it’s whether we can build systems that earn our trust despite that complexity.
What we’re really talking about is a new kind of social contract. One where expertise matters, but so does accountability. Where complexity is acknowledged, but transparency isn’t sacrificed.
Five critical areas show us how this might work: digital policy, climate governance, surgical practice, medical devices, and software platforms.
Yet before we explore those domains, we have to face the real hurdle: a widening trust gap that undercuts every one of them. Trust in healthcare is something that cannot be overlooked.
Trust In Healthcare: Bridging The Trust Gap
The complexity introduced by modern systems has created something we didn’t expect: a trust crisis. People feel shut out of decisions that affect their lives, whether it’s about data privacy, climate action, or medical treatment.
The experts know what they’re doing, but the rest of us? We’re left wondering if we should just take their word for it.
That approach isn’t sustainable. When people feel excluded from complex systems, they either submit blindly or rebel completely. Neither response serves us well.
What we need are structured mechanisms that can bridge this gap. Not dumbed-down explanations that insult everyone’s intelligence, but genuine frameworks that create accountability without requiring a PhD to understand.
Think of it as building trust infrastructure – the kind that can handle complexity without collapsing under its own weight.
Building that kind of infrastructure often begins in code and regulation, where digital policy can translate complexity into clear lines of responsibility.
Accountability In Digital Policy
Take digital technology, where code has become so complex that even programmers struggle to understand systems they didn’t build. Policy frameworks have stepped in to translate this complexity into something resembling accountability.
The Information Technology Industry Council’s Global Guiding Principles for Trust in Digital Technology, released in January 2023, show how this works.
They’ve created specific recommendations against mandating access mechanisms that weaken encryption or introduce vulnerabilities in devices and software.
They’re pushing for international cooperation through harmonised legal frameworks and improved Mutual Legal Assistance Treaties to handle cross-border access requests responsibly.
The principles also encourage collaborative vulnerability disclosure standards and multilateral engagement. It’s not perfect, but it’s an attempt to make cryptographic processes more open to governments and civil society alike.
Critics worry that strong privacy stances might hamstring law enforcement. Fair point. But the ITI framework tries to balance these concerns by promoting privacy, security, and regulated access simultaneously.
The goal isn’t to choose sides – it’s to maintain trust in data streams without compromising safety. If policy can codify trust in digital systems, climate solutions need their own social licence to operate.
Citizen Engagement In Climate Decisions
Complex climate projects too often collapse when citizens are shut out of decisions behind closed doors. A study by Radboud University published in October 2023 highlights exactly this problem with carbon capture and storage projects. When decisions get made without public input, support evaporates.
Their solution? Independent advisory councils and citizens’ assemblies that provide transparent reviews of technical plans. These bodies help align technologies with community values by giving people a real platform for input and scrutiny.
Sure, critics see citizen panels as box-ticking exercises. But there are cases where empowered councils have actually influenced or reshaped CCS proposals. That’s not tokenism – that’s democracy working with complexity instead of despite it.
The key insight here is that demystifying large-scale engineering isn’t about making everyone an expert. It’s about creating processes that let non-experts hold experts accountable.
Just as civic councils can demystify engineering projects, surgeons face their own version of this challenge in operating theatres.
Sharing Surgical Outcomes
In high-stakes medicine, trust gets built through concrete metrics, not bedside manner alone. Dr Timothy Steel, with over 21 years as a consultant neurosurgeon at St Vincent’s Hospital, demonstrates this approach.
He’s performed more than 2,000 brain surgeries, over 8,000 minimally invasive spine procedures, and more than 2,000 complex spine surgeries such as disc replacement and fusion surgeries.
What matters isn’t the volume but that those figures remain trackable and verifiable. Publishing success rates, recovery timelines, and complication data gives patients concrete benchmarks. They can make informed choices based on reliable data rather than vague reassurances.
Data transparency can’t eliminate surgical risks or guarantee perfect outcomes. But it creates a shared baseline for consent and accountability between surgeons and patients. It’s honesty dressed up as statistics.
This approach helps demystify procedures that most patients will never fully understand. You don’t need to know how to perform spinal fusion to evaluate whether your surgeon has a track record worth trusting.
Yet numbers alone can’t heal wounds that have been festering for years.
Rebuilding Trust in Healthcare
Sometimes the system fails so spectacularly that rebuilding trust requires more than transparency – it requires acknowledging the damage done.
Clair Francomano, an expert in connective tissue disorders, highlights the challenges faced by patients with Ehlers-Danlos syndromes who often feel disbelieved by medical professionals despite their visible symptoms.
“The biggest issue is that because there are problems in so many different organ systems and people look well, they’re often disbelieved even by medical professionals. It’s often very emotional for people to feel heard and understood and have some answers for why they’ve been struggling for so long,” she explains.
Colin Halverson’s research reveals the full scope of this trust breakdown. Patients with Ehlers-Danlos syndrome spend over a decade seeking diagnosis and may develop trauma-like responses due to negative healthcare encounters.
“I think the most striking and startling thing we’ve found is the high rates of trauma-like responses patients in this population have to health care delivery,” he notes.
Here’s the irony: these patients understand their own bodies better than most people ever will, yet they’re dismissed by experts who understand the textbooks. It’s a masterclass in how expertise without empathy creates its own kind of complexity – the kind that destroys rather than builds trust.
This crisis shows us that transparency and data aren’t enough on their own. Sometimes you need to admit that the system got it wrong first.
Beyond the consulting room, device makers grapple with similar challenges in making complexity accessible to the people who’ll live with it.
Trust In Medical Devices
Trust in healthcare and in medical devices comes from making complex implants feel like trusted companions rather than mysterious foreign objects.
Since January 2018, Dig Howitt has served as chief executive officer and president at Cochlear Limited, after holding roles in engineering, manufacturing, logistics, and regional leadership.
Under his oversight, the Osia System achieved MRI compatibility for bone-anchored patients. This means individuals with active bone conduction implants can undergo scans without device interference or additional surgical procedures.
That’s not just a technical achievement – it’s removing a barrier that could otherwise limit diagnostic options and patient safety.
Cochlear’s approach involves transparent engineering specifications, visible testing protocols, and comprehensive patient resources. They’re not hiding the complexity – they’re explaining it in ways that help people understand what’s happening inside their own bodies.
There’s always tension between cutting-edge miniaturisation and user simplicity. But continuous patient feedback loops help maintain both performance and comprehensibility. It’s proof that user-centred design can enhance trust without sacrificing innovation.
From medical implants to enterprise software, the principle remains the same: openness needs to be built in from day one, not retrofitted later.
Transparency in Software
In software development, clarity means embedding accountability into vast codebases that most users will never see.
Scott Farquhar’s Product-Led Growth strategy at Atlassian demonstrates how this works at scale. With over 200,000 customers and a valuation exceeding US$76 billion, Atlassian has shown that complex tools can gain widespread trust.
The Team Anywhere initiative and public feature roadmaps give customers visibility into upcoming developments and the criteria that guide prioritisation. Users know what’s coming and why certain features get priority over others.
Sure, there are downsides. Openness can create unrealistic expectations or reveal information that competitors might exploit. But Atlassian mitigates these risks through transparent issue-tracking and staged roll-outs.
Farquhar’s philanthropic commitments through the Skip Foundation and involvement in the Pledge 1% movement add layers of corporate accountability that extend beyond just software performance.
It’s not just about building tools people can trust – it’s about building companies that earn that trust through broader social responsibility.
These diverse approaches – from policy frameworks to surgical data, from device design to software clarity – converge into something larger than their individual parts.
Building a Trust Bridge
Policy-driven accountability, citizen engagement, data transparency, user-centred design, and platform openness form the five strands of a trust bridge that can actually support society’s weight.
Passive reliance or sweeping doubt both threaten the innovation and democratic oversight we need. Only proactive transparency and genuine engagement can sustain confidence in complex systems.
Each strand must be visible and properly tensioned. Hide the cables or let them go slack, and the whole structure becomes unreliable. We’ve learned this lesson in digital policy, climate governance, medical practice, device design, and software development.
As we encounter new complex systems – from the next app update to the next surgical procedure – demanding clarity won’t be optional. It’ll be essential for maintaining any bridge between expertise and public trust in healthcare.
So next time you face hidden complexity, ask to see the cables – because only visible engineering earns real confidence.
After all, the best bridges aren’t the ones that hide their engineering – they’re the ones that let you see exactly how they’re holding you up.
Read More:
