Most People Worldwide Trust Scientists Despite Crisis Claims

Public trust in scientists matters in concrete, practical ways. When people trust researchers, they’re more likely to follow public health guidance, support evidence-based policy, and take action on pressing issues like climate change. Despite this, news coverage and popular commentary have helped spread a narrative of collapse — the idea that public trust in science and scientists has been fundamentally undermined. This framing predates COVID-19 and may itself shape how people relate to scientific authority. Yet most studies examining trust in scientists have focused narrowly on the U.S. or Europe, leaving a significant gap in the global evidence.

A large international research consortium, the Trust in Science and Science-Related Populism (TISP) Many Labs project, surveyed 71,922 people across 68 countries between November 2022 and August 2023 to assess how much people trust scientists, what factors predict trust, how people feel about scientists’ role in society and policymaking, and which research goals the public wants scientists to prioritize. Trust in scientists was assessed across four dimensions: perceived competence, integrity, benevolence, and openness to feedback. Researchers used multilevel statistical models to identify individual- and country-level predictors of trust.

The study was preregistered, conducted in 37 languages with input from local research partners in nearly all countries, and weighted to reflect national distributions of age, gender, and education level. Together, the countries surveyed represent 79% of the global population.

Trust in scientists was moderately high across all 68 countries surveyed (around 3.6 on a five-point scale), with no country showing overall low trust. Scientists’ perceived competence was rated highest, with 78% of respondents globally agreeing that scientists are qualified to conduct high-impact research. Somewhat lower proportions agreed that most scientists are honest (57%) and care about people’s well-being (56%). Scientists’ openness to feedback was rated lowest, with 42% believing that scientists pay attention to others’ views somewhat or very much.

Several individual-level characteristics were associated with higher trust: being a woman, being older, having more education, having higher income, living in an urban area, being religious, and holding left-leaning or liberal political views. Lower trust was associated with being male, having conservative political views, preferring social hierarchy (what psychologists call social dominance orientation), and holding “science-related populist” attitudes, meaning the belief that ordinary common sense is superior to scientific expertise.

Crucially, the relationship between political orientation and trust varied substantially across countries. Right-leaning and conservative distrust of scientists was concentrated in several European and North American countries — the same countries that have dominated most previous research on this topic. In the majority of countries surveyed, political orientation showed no credible relationship to trust levels at all. In some Eastern European, Southeast Asian, and African countries, right-leaning individuals actually showed higher trust in scientists. The authors suggest this may reflect the fact that in some places, left-leaning — rather than right-leaning — political leadership has cultivated skepticism of scientific authority.

Respondents broadly wanted scientists to be more engaged in public life. A large majority (83%) agreed that scientists should communicate their findings to the general public. Only minorities disagreed that scientists should advocate for specific policies (23%), communicate with politicians (19%), or be more involved in policymaking (21%). Respondents also perceived a substantial gap between what they want from scientists and what they believe scientists currently deliver. Poverty reduction showed the largest discrepancy between the public’s desired focus and their sense of what scientists actually prioritize, while most respondents felt that defense and military research receives more attention than they would prefer.

The study’s reliance on online surveys likely underrepresented populations with limited internet access. In six countries, including Botswana, Ethiopia, Ghana, India, Kenya, and Nigeria, the survey was fielded in English or French rather than more commonly spoken languages, which likely oversampled more educated participants. Also, the definition of science and scientists used across all countries reflected a predominantly Western conception of knowledge production and didn’t account for Indigenous or traditional knowledge systems, a limitation the authors acknowledge directly.

The global “trust crisis” narrative, a familiar fixture of news coverage, isn’t well supported by the evidence. Scientists remain broadly trusted across cultures, income levels, and religious backgrounds, and most people around the world want researchers more engaged in public life, not less. For animal advocates who routinely rely on scientific evidence to make the case for animal welfare, this is meaningful: the researchers documenting the sentience of fishes, the social complexity of farmed pigs, or the suffering caused by battery cages are working within a field that most of the global public trusts and values.

That said, the study highlights real and persistent pockets of distrust that advocates should understand. People who strongly prefer social hierarchy are significantly less likely to trust scientists. This same trait has been linked in other research to weaker concern for animals and the environment, suggesting a double challenge: the audiences most resistant to scientific evidence may also be least receptive to animal welfare arguments more broadly. For these groups, scientific messaging may be less effective than values-based communication or outreach through trusted voices outside formal scientific institutions. It’s also worth noting that of the four dimensions of trust, perceived openness to feedback was rated lowest, a reminder that advocates and researchers who want to maintain public credibility should model genuine, two-way dialogue, not top-down information delivery.

Finally, advocates interested in country-specific findings can explore the data directly using the interactive tool developed for the project.

This summary was drafted by a large language model (LLM) and closely edited by our Research Library Manager for clarity and accuracy. As per our AI policy, Faunalytics only uses LLMs to summarize very long reports (~50+ pages) that are not appropriate to assign to volunteers, studies that contain graphic descriptions of animal cruelty or animal industries, and research on niche topics. We remain committed to bringing you reliable data, which is why any AI-generated work will always be reviewed by a human.