Science on Trial: Perspectives on Scientists and Society Across 68 Countries 

Paper Title: Trust in scientists and their role in society across 68 countries

Author(s) and Year: Viktoria Cologna, Niels G. Mede, Sebastian Berger et al. (2025)

Journal: Nature Human Behaviour (Open Access)

TL;DR: Science is an important driver of informed decision- and policy-making, governmental spending, and crisis response. This study challenges a claim that there is a crisis of trust in scientists. A global survey of 71,922 respondents across 68 countries reveals that the public still trusts scientists and wishes them to engage more actively in the life of society. Variations between countries and individuals exist, however, caused by factors such as political orientation, education, religiosity, and others.

Why I chose this paper: I was drawn to this paper as it is one of the largest-scale scicomm studies to date, which offers a unique opportunity to examine the state of trust in scientists on an unprecedented scale. Science is often financed by public money, so it is important to understand what factors affect this trust and how it can be strengthened. For science communicators, it can provide valuable insight into how outreach can be tailored to different cultural and political contexts.

The Background

Opening Statements—Scientists and Society

The air in the courtroom is heavy with tension as science is about to face its accusers.

Public trust in science supports evidence-based decision- and policy-making, spurs government spending on research, and helps manage global crises such as the COVID-19 pandemic and climate change. For example, it has been reported that societies with high trust in science dealt more efficiently with COVID-19 and are more likely to take action against the changing climate.

While most studies affirm public trust in scientists, a dominant narrative – well-predating the pandemic – claims that there is a crisis of trust in science and scientists in society. As science stands trial in the court of public opinion, the stakes are nothing less than scientists remaining a guiding light among the modern-day uncertainties of propaganda and skepticism.

The Research Question

Prosecution Case-in-Chief—A Trust Crisis

The prosecution builds the case against the very foundation of trust in science.

Past research on trust in science largely focused on Europe and the United States, and looked at a limited range of factors impacting this trust by focusing on generalized trust. This paper, on the other hand, uses a high-dimensional trust measure to map the state of trust in scientists across 68 countries. Specifically, it investigated four core dimensions of trust: competence, benevolence, integrity, and openness.

The paper answers the following questions:

1. How much do people trust scientists, and how does trust vary across countries?
2. How is this trust affected by demographic, ideological, individual, and country-wide factors?
3. What normative perceptions of scientists do people have – that is, the extent to which the public thinks scientists should participate in society and policy-making – and how do these perceptions vary globally?
4. What issues do people want scientists to prioritize, and do they believe that scientists are working on them?

By asking these questions the authors do not imply that trust is always warranted. On the contrary, they note that low trust in scientists can be justified, giving science’s historical relationship with racism as an example. Additionally, the researchers acknowledge that the authority of science has been challenged by factors such as misinformation and disinformation, the replication crisis, conspiracy theories, and science-related populism. 

The Methods

Defense Evidence—Trust Me, I’m a Scientist

The defense stands tall, presenting evidence backed by data, the scientific method, and scientific integrity.

Researchers circulated a translated online questionnaire to 71,922 respondents from 68 countries, covering 31% of the world’s total countries and representing 79% of the global population. To reduce ambiguity, the authors focused on investigating trust in scientists rather than trust in science – as the latter can be associated with institutions, methods, or communities rather than individuals. Additionally, they provided the respondents with a clear definition of science and scientists to account for language differences.

The study used a 12-item scale to measure four dimensions of trustworthiness. The components were combined into a single trust index, representing a comprehensive measure of public trust in scientists that the authors then analyzed.

To measure correlates of trust in scientists within different groups, researchers fitted linear random-intercept regression models. The authors also investigated normative perceptions of scientists in society and perceived and desired priorities of scientific research by asking dedicated survey questions.

The Results

Jury Deliberation—Mapping Trust in Scientists

Behind closed doors, the jury weighs the arguments – data versus doubt.

Trust Across 68 Countries

The authors report that trust in scientists measures moderately high overall – 3.62 on average with a standard deviation of 0.70 – on a 5-grade scale (1 being very low and 5 being very high). Globally, people perceive scientists as competent (mean = 4.02), with 78% believing they are qualified to conduct high-impact research. Perceptions of scientists’ integrity (mean = 3.58) and benevolence (mean = 3.55) are moderate. Fifty seven percent believe that most scientists are honest and 56% believe they care about public well-being. Openness to feedback measures lower than the other three trust components (mean = 3.33), and 42% believe that scientists pay attention to others’ views somewhat or very much. Notably, 75% believe that science is the best way to find out if something is true or not.

When it comes to differences amongst countries, this study did not affirm a previous notion that trust in scientists is lower in Latin America and Africa. The highest trust in scientists has been reported in Egypt (4.30), India (4.26), Nigeria (3.98), Kenya (3.95), and Australia (3.91). Spain (3.90) and Slovakia (3.37) measure the highest and the lowest amongst the surveyed EU countries, respectively. The United States (3.86) reports a slightly higher level of trust than Canada (3.81). Former Soviet states and satellite countries all measure lower than the grand mean.

Trust Correlates

The authors find a higher level of trust in scientists amongst the following demographic groups: women, older people, residents of urban regions, people with high incomes, and religious, educated, liberal, and left-leaning people. Despite an existing assumption that religiosity is associated with lower trust in scientists, this study has found a positive correlation between the two globally, although the authors report significant differences among countries.

Negative correlation with trust in scientists is reported for individual factors such as conservative political orientation, science-related populism, and societal dominance orientation (SDO) – or the degree to which individuals desire and support group-based hierarchy and the domination of ‘inferior’ by ‘superior’ groups. On larger scales, correlations with left or right political orientations vary substantially amongst surveyed countries. The study therefore concludes there is not enough evidence to link political orientation to a higher or lower trust in scientists globally; instead, it can be explained by attitudes of political leaders in a particular country.

Societal Perception of Scientists and Priorities of Scientific Research

The authors found that the public mostly agrees that scientists should engage in society and policy-making, although right-leaning people are less supportive. Eighty three percent agree that scientists should engage in science communication, especially in African countries. Amongst the public’s priorities for scientific research are health, energy, and poverty reduction. The study reports a significant gap between desired and perceived research priorities, which is correlated with trust in scientists. We invite the reader of this Bite to consult the full article that discusses these results in more detail.

The Impact 

Verdict—A Global Reality Check

The courtroom goes silent as the jury returns – was the voice of reason strong enough to overcome rumors and propaganda?

This study challenged and helped disprove a narrative that there is a crisis of trust in scientists. It was found that the public still trusts scientists, although variations exist both on individual and country levels. No country reports low trust in scientists on average, but the authors note that even the lack of trust from a minority should be taken seriously as a minority of just 10% can flip a majority opinion. It has, for example, been reported that a small group opposing climate action can slow public opinion aligning with scientific views.

Future research on trust in science could investigate how minority opinions can impact public trust in scientists, differences between public perceptions of scientists in different disciplines, and differences in public opinions on scientists participating in policy-making depending on their expertise.

My key takeaway: Public trust in scientists is multidimensional. This offers an interesting opportunity for scientists and science communicators to strengthen and build on specific components of this trust. Differences amongst population groups can be also considered by science communicators to adapt outreach efforts to better reach different audiences.

Court adjourned.

Written by Mykyta ‘Nik’ Kliapets

Edited by Alex Music and Madeline Fisher

Featured image credit: Artem Podrez at Pexels (CC0 license from Creative Commons)