Summary
A survey of 4,262 UK adults found that most respondents trusted scientists, especially when they saw them as transparent and aligned with people like themselves. These factors were more strongly associated with trust than perceived scientific expertise.
A survey of 4,262 adults in the United Kingdom found that trust in scientists was linked most strongly to whether people believed scientists were open and transparent and were “on the side of people like them”. Those factors had a stronger association with trust than perceptions of scientific expertise, according to a study led by the Policy Institute at King’s College London and the charity Sense about Science.
Most people surveyed expressed trust in scientists
Nearly two-thirds of respondents, 63%, gave scientists a trust score of at least seven on a scale from zero to 10. Only 5% gave a score of three or below.
The findings come from a report examining how political views and personal values shape confidence in science. The researchers used regression modelling to identify which characteristics and perceptions were most closely associated with trust. Regression analysis can show relationships between variables while accounting for several factors, but the survey design does not establish that one perception directly causes another.
The overall result was therefore not a picture of uniformly low confidence in science. Instead, trust was generally high but varied according to how scientists were perceived and the subjects on which they worked.
Perceived alignment mattered more than expertise
The strongest associations with trust concerned scientists’ relationship with the public. Respondents were more likely to trust scientists when they felt that researchers cared about people like them and communicated openly.
The report distinguishes this from a broader belief that scientists want to benefit society as a whole. Trust was associated more strongly with the perception that scientists were on the respondent’s side, which the report assigns a figure of 21%, than with the general belief that scientists were working for society’s good, assigned 12%.
Bobby Duffy, director of the Policy Institute at King’s College London and an author of the study, said the result reflected the influence of political division on how people interpret institutions. In a polarised environment, people may assess not only whether scientists are competent but also whether their work appears relevant and beneficial to people with values or circumstances similar to their own.
Trust also varied by scientific field. The report identifies vaccines, space and climate as areas where confidence in scientists declined. Confidence differed by institutional setting as well, with respondents distinguishing between scientists working in academia, government and private companies.
Why the finding matters for science communication
Scientific expertise remains important, but the survey suggests that credentials alone may not determine whether evidence is accepted. Transparency and a visible connection to public interests can shape whether people regard scientists as trustworthy sources.
That has practical importance in areas such as vaccination, climate research and emerging technologies, where scientific findings often inform personal decisions and public policy. Communication that explains methods and evidence while also making the social purpose of the work clear may be more effective than communication focused only on authority or technical qualifications.
The study is based on UK adults, so its results describe public attitudes in that national setting. Its regression results identify associations rather than experimental effects, and the supplied report summary does not provide the survey’s fieldwork dates or detailed sampling method. How the same relationships vary across countries or scientific issues would require separate research.