The confidence the public places in scientific professionals is a cornerstone. This public reliance facilitates informed personal choices, particularly concerning health matters, and informs evidence-based governmental strategies for addressing critical challenges like the COVID pandemic or the escalating issue of climate change.
A comprehensive survey, encompassing 71,922 individuals across 68 nations, conducted by our international consortium of 241 researchers, has revealed that the majority of people generally hold a favourable view of scientists.
Significantly, there is a discernible public desire for scientists to actively participate in societal discourse and in shaping public policy. Our findings have been officially published today in the journal Nature Human Behaviour.
Consequently, what implications do these revelations hold for society as a whole, and for the scientific and policy-making communities striving to cultivate and sustain public confidence? We offer the following insights derived from our research.
On the purported ‘crisis’
Evidence from various reports and public opinion polls indicates that a substantial portion of the populace trusts scientific endeavours, and scientists consistently rank among the most esteemed professions within society. Nevertheless, the assertion of a widespread “crisis of trust” in scientific fields and those who practice it persists.
For instance, certain studies suggest that media portrayals of public opinion surveys can function as a self-fulfilling phenomenon or a reciprocal influence mechanism, potentially diminishing scientific credibility by highlighting a perceived deficit in trust.
Additional investigations propose that media-driven policy narratives can shape public perception through framing strategies. For example, exposure to conservative media coverage of scientific disagreements may foster increased skepticism towards scientists, thereby contributing to heightened denial of climate change.
Our research extends beyond a purely Western perspective, encompassing numerous less-studied nations in the Global South. We sought to ascertain whether a genuine deficit in trust towards scientists exists and if these trust levels exhibit significant variation across different countries.
A truly global survey
We implemented a crowd-sourced Many Labs initiative, deploying an identical, translated questionnaire across 68 nations spanning all inhabited continents.
Data collection spanned from November 2022 to August 2023. Our participant samples were calibrated to reflect national demographics concerning age, gender, educational attainment, and country-specific sample sizes. An interactive data dashboard is available for exploring global and country-specific information here.
The perceived trustworthiness of scientists was evaluated across four established dimensions: their presumed competence, their benevolent intentions, their integrity, and their openness to dialogue.
How much do people around the world trust scientists?
Our global analysis reveals that the majority of individuals generally hold a high degree of trust in scientists, with an average trust rating of 3.62 on a scale from 1 (representing very low trust) to 5 (representing very high trust).
On a global scale, individuals perceive scientists as possessing strong competence and benevolent intentions, coupled with moderate integrity. However, they are perceived as being somewhat less open to receiving feedback. A significant proportion of respondents identified scientists as qualified (78%), honest (57%), and demonstrably concerned for human welfare (56%).
No participating country reported low levels of trust in scientific professionals.
Australia achieved a position among the top five nations with the highest trust in scientists, scoring notably above the global average. It ranked just behind Egypt, India, Nigeria, and Kenya.
Are there differences in trust based on who you are?
Across the globe, our findings suggest that trust tends to be slightly elevated among women, older individuals, urban dwellers compared to those in rural areas, and persons with higher income levels, greater religiosity, more formal education, and those identifying with liberal and left-leaning political ideologies.
In the majority of surveyed nations, political orientation and trust in scientists were found to be unrelated. However, within Western countries, individuals holding conservative (right-leaning) political views exhibited less trust in scientists compared to their liberal (left-leaning) counterparts. This observation aligns with prior research conducted in North America.
Within Australia, political affiliation, whether conservative or liberal, did not appear to significantly influence trust in science, a contrast to patterns observed in North America and many European countries. This divergence might suggest that political polarization concerning scientific matters is less pronounced than in regions where specific scientific issues, such as climate change, are more politicized.
Globally, a factor that demonstrably impacted trust was an individual’s endorsement of what is termed social dominance orientation – a predisposition towards hierarchical societal structures and inequality between social groups. Individuals scoring high on this orientation exhibited significantly lower levels of trust in scientists, a finding consistent with earlier studies.
How do people think scientists should behave?
A majority of the survey respondents expressed support for science playing an active role in societal development and policy formulation.
Globally, 83% of participants believe that scientists have a responsibility to disseminate scientific information to the general public, a sentiment particularly pronounced in African nations.
Overall, approximately half of respondents (49%) feel that scientists should actively champion specific policies, and a similar proportion (52%) believe scientists ought to be more deeply integrated into the policy-making process.
In Australia, roughly two-thirds of respondents (66%) indicated that scientists should be proactive advocates for particular policies, and a majority (62%) are of the opinion that scientists should be involved in policy development.
What do people think scientists should prioritise?
A considerable number of individuals worldwide perceive a misalignment between the current research priorities of scientists and their own personal priorities.
This discrepancy is significant, as the gap between perceived and desired research objectives is directly correlated with levels of trust in scientists. The less confidence individuals have in scientists, the more likely they are to believe that scientific efforts do not adequately address their expectations regarding research focus.
Generally, respondents indicated that research aimed at enhancing public health should receive the highest priority, followed by addressing energy challenges and alleviating poverty.
Research focused on developing defense and military technologies was assigned the lowest priority. On a global scale, respondents believe that science devotes more resources to this area than is warranted.
However, there are substantial regional variations in these preferences. Individuals in African and Asian countries expressed a desire for a greater emphasis on the development of defense and military technologies.
No crisis exists – but these are valuable insights
Our findings corroborate Western surveys, which consistently position scientists among the most trusted professions. Globally, our results demonstrate a high level of public confidence in scientists and a strong sentiment that they should actively contribute to societal progress and policy formation.
These collective findings do not support the prevailing narrative of a widespread crisis in public trust towards science.
Crucially, our research does illuminate certain areas warranting attention. Globally, fewer than half of the respondents (42%) believe that scientists are receptive to diverse viewpoints. While scientists are generally regarded as highly competent and possessing moderate integrity and benevolent intentions, there is a perception that they are less open to constructive criticism and feedback.
Furthermore, a notable gap exists between current research priorities and those desired by the public, a disparity that is linked to trust levels.
We strongly advise scientists to take these findings seriously. They should actively seek methods to enhance their receptiveness to public feedback and foster more open dialogue. Within Western nations, scientists should explore novel approaches to engage with conservative demographics.
Looking ahead, scientists ought to critically examine their role in establishing research priorities that better align with the values held by the broader public.
