Why Global Trust in Science is Thriving: Insights and Implications for the Future

A new study reveals that trust in scientists remains strong worldwide. Led by Viktoria Cologna from ETH Zurich and Niels G. Mede from the University of Zurich, this research involved 241 researchers who analyzed data from 71,922 participants across 68 countries. According to Cologna, “Most people around the world trust scientists and want them involved in society and politics.” The study challenges the belief that there’s a widespread crisis of trust in science.

This survey marks a significant step since the coronavirus pandemic. It offers global insights into how different populations view scientists, how researchers should engage with the public, and which research topics are deemed important.

Overall, the study indicates a healthy level of trust: the average trust score is 3.62 on a scale where 1 means very low trust and 5 means very high trust. A large majority (78%) see scientists as qualified, while 57% view them as honest and concerned about public well-being. However, there are areas of concern. Just 42% believe that scientists consider public opinions. Mede emphasizes that many individuals feel scientific priorities often diverge from their own. He suggests that researchers should be more open to dialogue with the public.

The study also highlights differences in trust based on political views, especially in Western countries. Those with right-wing beliefs tend to trust scientists less than their left-leaning counterparts. In many other areas, political affiliation does not strongly affect trust in science.

Most participants expressed a desire for scientists to take an active role in societal discussions and policymaking. A striking 83% agree that scientists should communicate more with the public, while only 23% think they shouldn’t advocate for specific policies. Additionally, 52% believe researchers should engage more in policymaking.

Topics such as public health, energy solutions, and poverty reduction were prioritized by participants. Conversely, research related to defense and military technology was ranked lower, suggesting a mismatch between public priorities and where science may be directed.