Niels Mede is curious to know how the public views science. Last month, two different Uber drivers told the science communication researcher that they thought trust in science was low in their countries.

Have people stopped trusting science? The data tells a surprising story

This came as no surprise to Mede, who works at Wageningen University and Research in the Netherlands. He’s seen the idea that there’s a crisis of public trust in science in headlines, book titles, and conference agendas (and co-led a major study on the topic).¹). It has gained traction thanks to populist rhetoric that frames scientists as part of an out-of-touch and suspicious elite. The US administration is using distrust in science as a justification to attack the scientific enterprise.

Trust in science is important. Scientific knowledge cannot influence decisions and improve lives unless citizens and policymakers consider it trustworthy. Confidence that scientists and the scientific process produce reliable and valuable knowledge is also necessary to maintain support for public funding of research. That’s why Nature This week includes a series of articles on trust in science. Together with an expanded online collection (see go.nature.com/4xwut6h), it identifies problems and discusses how scientists can maintain the trust of the public and policymakers.

How FAIR data is helping to build trust in science

The idea that science is experiencing a crisis of confidence is simplistic shorthand for more complex problems. As stated in an article, the data does not confirm the idea of ​​a global crisis. Surveys consistently show that the scientific profession is trusted, far more than most. An overview of relevant research published in June by biomedical funder Wellcome in London and public policy think tank RAND Europe in Cambridge, UK, shows that trust in science and scientists is medium to high, not in a state of collapse (see go.nature.com/4euiees). A 2024 survey of more than 23,000 people in 32 countries by London-based market research firm Ipsos showed that 56% of respondents trusted scientists (see go.nature.com/4egifnn). Only doctors were trusted more (58%); politicians (15%) and advertising executives (19%) languished at the bottom of the chart.

But levels and trends in trust in science and scientists vary by country and are falling in some groups. In some places, trust is polarized along political lines. In the United States, it is declining among people who identify as Republican or Republican-leaning, but not among Democrats. This trend emerged about 20 years ago, but accelerated during the COVID-19 pandemic. It is part of a broader loss of public trust in institutions, including the media, businesses and political bodies.

Scientists should acknowledge their own political biases to build public trust

An underlying problem is that academics, including scientists, are sometimes seen as part of the elite and out of touch with most people, an idea amplified by some populist groups.². A survey of people living in Britain, published in April by Wellcome and the political think tank More in Common in London, highlights these divisions (see go.nature.com/4vqskh3). It shows that scientists are more left-wing than the general public; Furthermore, 29% of those surveyed affirm that “scientists consider themselves better than other people.”

Trust is also declining when it comes to specific areas related to science. An increasing number of people question or reject vaccines. Measles vaccines are estimated to have saved 59 million lives since 2000, according to the World Health Organization, but vaccine hesitancy is a key reason why six countries, including the United Kingdom, Spain and Armenia, lost their measles elimination status this year, and the United States’ status is in jeopardy.

Six ways to put the public at the center of science and policy

Researchers need to accurately diagnose the causes of these trends. Among other things, that means using more nuanced measures of opinions and concerns. Asking people if they “trust science” is vague: many respondents probably think of stereotypical biology and physics and say yes, even if they also reject vaccines or a science-based policy that conflicts with their values. Greater specificity and clarity is needed in trust research.

It is important to try strategies that build trust and effectively address people’s specific concerns. For example, there is a wealth of research showing how to respond compassionately to vaccine hesitancy (see Nature 642289–291; 2025). Other work is testing ways to improve the use of research in policymaking.³.

Researchers must also work harder to connect with broader society and shed perceptions of elitism. One way is to increase public participation in all steps of research, including setting its priorities, something that has long been discussed and rarely practiced. People are more likely to trust scientists when scientists trust the public and are open about the many uncertainties of science, as science communication and policy scholars argue in a commentary.

Greater self-reflection in research can lead to better science

Some problems don’t have easy answers. There is no incentive for politicians to support science if they can gain more votes and influence by rejecting its evidence and adopting alternative narratives. This is exacerbated by the fragmentation of the media ecosystem and the rise of social media, meaning scientists are losing influence.

Inaccurate and unreliable information is harmful when it leads to individual decisions that harm health, such as avoiding vaccines, or erodes support for planet-saving climate action and life-saving public health measures. Being trustworthy is both a privilege and a responsibility. Researchers must do more to elevate accurate findings and remember that trust is easily wasted and lost.