Examining public trust in science

What is the issue?

Despite a large body of recent evidence on public trust in science, important gaps remain. Much of the literature relies on survey measures that conflate trust in scientists, institutions and the scientific system. Few longitudinal, qualitative or experimental studies provide consistent insights into changing patterns of trust or how trust decisions are made in real-world settings. Despite its importance, explicit distrust is rarely examined directly, limiting understanding of how it differs from ambivalence or low trust. There is also limited empirical research on cross-cultural differences in trust cues or the nature of the difficult-to-fake signals.

How did we help?

RAND Europe supported Wellcome by examining what drives public trust in science, scientists and scientific institutions, and how trustworthiness is communicated in practice.

The first phase of the work involved a literature review of conceptual and empirical research on public trust in science, with a focus on Europe, the United States and Canada. This was supported by scoping interviews with experts working on trust in science, science communication, public understanding of science and science policy. This work aimed to understand what we know about whether members of the public trust science, what makes scientists trustworthy, and how this trustworthiness is shown by scientists and scientific institutions.

The second phase explored how scientific trustworthiness is demonstrated, recognised and contested on social media. This involved a mixed-methods analysis of trust and trustworthiness cues in content and conversations across YouTube, Reddit, X and BlueSky.

The social media analysis examined activity and interactions across four platforms to address three research questions:

1. Can trust and distrust be observed and distinguished in online interactions across individual, institutional and system-level dimensions of science?
2. What do scientists and scientific institutions do online to present themselves as trustworthy?
3. How do these behaviours contribute to the formation, reinforcement or erosion of trust in scientists, scientific institutions and science more broadly?

What did we find?

Trust in science is generally moderate to high, with little evidence of a widespread collapse in confidence. Levels of trust differ between countries and at the individual level. However, those who actively distrust may have a disproportionate impact on public conversations around science.

A lack of trust should be distinguished from distrust. A lack of trust may be neutral, passive and reflect a lack of engagement or interest. Distrust, in contrast, involves a belief that scientific actors may mislead, act in bad faith or fail to uphold expected standards. This belief may be warranted at times, particularly by personal or historical experience.

Maintaining public trust in science requires attention to scientific trustworthiness. Trustworthiness can be defined as the qualities that make individuals, institutions and scientific systems deserving of trust, regardless of whether trust is conferred. It relates to five qualities: expertise, integrity, benevolence, transparency and responsiveness.

Building well-placed public trust in science requires trustworthiness to be demonstrated in ways that allow members of the public to place their trust confidently. This occurs at the individual (micro), institutional (meso) and system (macro) levels (see the figure below, showing indicative activities associated with each dimension across levels).

Figure by RAND Europe

The figure is a three-ring circular diagram organized around five values: Expertise, Benevolence, Transparency, Responsiveness, and Integrity. The rings represent system (macro), institutional (meso), and individual (micro) level factors.

Value	Macro	Meso	Micro
Expertise	Standards of knowledge and methods	Reputation, history	Qualifications, affiliation
Benevolence	Social purpose of science	Sector, past behaviour	Positive intentions, warmth
Transparency	Open science	Openness about processes	Qualifications, affiliations
Responsiveness	Democratic or inclusive decision making	Inclusive decision making	Participation in public engagement
Integrity	Self correction, peer review	Safeguards, ethics review	Participation in peer review, independence

Scientists and institutions often foreground expertise as the basis for public trust. However, public evaluations of trustworthiness also emphasise motives, independence, openness and a willingness to listen to or engage with public concerns. Responses to scientists on social media often focus on independence, funding, governance and links to political or commercial interests.

Transparency works differently for different audiences. Openness about uncertainty and scientific limitations can strengthen trustworthiness for some people by signalling honesty. However, the same transparency can reinforce doubt for others, especially those already sceptical. Responsiveness or scientific openness to dialogue and conversation is conceptually important but less visible in practice than other qualities. Active listening, public engagement and genuine dialogue appear less often in current science communication practice, especially on social media.

Public assessments of trustworthiness and the placing of trust also depend on the social and political context of a scientific domain, as well as an individual's willingness to trust.

What can be done?

The findings underline the need for approaches that support scientists and institutions in robustly demonstrating their trustworthiness.

1. Scientific institutions, funders and scientists should work to build and maintain public trust in science by ensuring that the public can place their trust in genuinely trustworthy science.
2. Efforts to demonstrate trustworthiness should not rely solely on showing expertise. Scientists and scientific institutions should make visible commitments to integrity, benevolence, transparency and responsiveness.
3. Scientists' and institutions' commitments to integrity should acknowledge concerns about motivations as well as the robustness of scientific practice. Scientists and institutions should be clear and open about their commitments, values and funding.
4. Claims about benevolence and the wider social benefits of science should acknowledge the limits of individual scientists' or institutional action and situate them within broader social, economic and political systems and constraints.
5. It is important that findings are communicated transparently, particularly about uncertainty. Communication should be open and clear. It requires careful attention to audience, context, and content.
6. Scientists and institutions should respond to public views, hopes, and concerns and involve the public in their work. Where public engagement and dialogue have informed research, this should be communicated widely to demonstrate how science responds to people and communities.
7. Scientists should consider how to engage actively and responsibly with audiences, rather than relying on one-way communication. Institutions can enable this by ensuring engagement is supported by institutional policy.
8. Scientists and institutions should consider how different online and offline settings can demonstrate differing forms of interaction with the public and dimensions of trustworthiness. For example, using YouTube for one-way dissemination, discussing research on Reddit, and engaging members of the public in in-person conversation or formal dialogue.
9. Scientists and institutions should account for the changing nature and role of social media in shaping how scientific trustworthiness is demonstrated and interpreted.

Project team

Additional team members

• Teodora Chis