Climate researchers face the widest political divide of any field
Read the full study
Read the segmentation summary
Trust in scientists in the UK is strong overall, with 63% indicating they have high trust in scientists in general - but a major new study finds this trust is closely shaped by people's values, identity and politics, showing some of the same patterns of division over science that have emerged in the US.
The research finds trust rests less on whether scientists are seen as expert, and more on whether people feel scientists are "on the side of people like them".
This view tracks political support closely: only 32% of Reform UK supporters feel scientists are on their side, versus 71% of Green supporters - a 39-point gap.
This kind of political divide risks influencing how people see science - something that's occurred in the US in recent years - and the study finds Reform supporters are far less trusting of, and more cynical about, scientists in general and climate scientists in particular, who emerge as the most politically polarising of all the scientists studied.
But other drivers of trust still matter, including knowing a scientist personally, which is linked to greater trust in scientists regardless of occupational or educational levels.
And while outright distrust remains a minority position, the research reveals the key actions that could help increase levels of trust in the future.
The study, led by the Policy Institute at King's College London and Sense about Science, and funded by Wellcome, is based on a nationally representative survey of 4,262 UK adults conducted with YouGov.
This was combined with regression modelling to identify the factors most associated with trust, and a major new segmentation analysis to break the public into groups based on the varying types of trust they have in scientists. Informed by distinct attitudes towards, and personal connections to, scientists, the groups range from "Science Advocates" through to "Science Critics". From the analysis, seven main points stand out.
1. Trust in scientists is highly related to the perception of shared values and identity
One of the strongest drivers of trust is whether people feel scientists are "on the side of people like them". This outweighs other drivers of perceptions of trustworthiness, such as expertise, and it varies very significantly across the population: only 7% of people who have low trust in scientists in general think scientists are on their side, and only 22% of those who score in the middle - compared with 68% of those with high trust.
Part of this is a suspicion among those with lower levels of trust that scientists have different values systems to themselves:
Four in 10 (40%) of those with low trust and a quarter (25%) of those with middling trust feel scientists care more about social and political causes than about scientific progress, compared with just one in 10 (10%) of those with high trust.
While a third (34%) of those with high trust agree scientists have the same values as them, just 8% of middling-trusters and 2% of low-trusters say the same.
Low-trusters (38%) are nearly five times as likely as high-trusters (8%) to say "scientists are too woke", while middling-trusters (23%) are around three times as likely as high-trusters to agree with this view.
This dynamic plays out most along party political lines, where Reform UK supporters are the least positive about scientists: just 32% feel scientists are "on the side of people like them", versus 71% of Green supporters - a 39-point gap, reflecting real polarisation across the public. Labour (69%) and Lib Dem (65%) supporters are closer to Greens on this question, while Conservatives (50%) are nearer to Reform, though still much more likely to feel scientists are on their side.
This same identity-driven scepticism means Reform supporters are by far most likely to say that scientists are "in cahoots" with politicians and businesses (50% vs 27% for public as a whole), and that society should rely more on common sense than scientific studies (48% vs 24%). On both questions, supporters of other parties are much closer to the public overall.
2. But other drivers of trustworthiness still really matter
There are other factors strongly related to trust, some of which are more in scientists' control than others. Perceptions of openness and transparency are vital across different types of scientists: for example, 73% of those with high trust in scientists in general say they are open and transparent, compared with just 28% of those in the middle and 10% of those with low trust.
Other factors are less in scientists' control. The high-trust group are quite distinct from the others in their direct connection to science, through working in science or medicine themselves, or personally knowing someone who does: 38% say they do, but only 23% of the middle group and 16% of the low-trusters say the same. This personal connection to science is linked to greater trust regardless of occupational and educational levels. For example, among those with no or low qualifications (GCSE level or below), 74% who work as or know a scientist have high trust in scientists, compared with only 52% who don't.
There is a strong relationship between trust in a wide range of national institutions and trust in scientists, which reflects how a general loss of trust can impact across domains: only 4% of those with low trust in scientists say they trust the courts and legal system, compared with 40% of those with high trust in scientists.
Perceived past "betrayals" by scientific institutions also strongly undermine trust: over half of those with low trust (55%) say they have often felt betrayed by scientific institutions they are supposed to trust, compared with just 10% of high-trusters.
Conspiracy beliefs are also highly associated with trust levels in particular branches of science, with low-trusters more likely to believe conspiracy theories about vaccines, climate change and the effects of 5G phone towers. But worryingly, it's not just this group who are vulnerable to such beliefs: for example, while 83% of those with low trust in vaccine scientists say the harmful effects of vaccines are being deliberately hidden from us, half (51%) of middling-trusters do too - compared with only 15% of high-trusters.
3. Only a small minority actively distrust scientists - but some distrusting beliefs are widespread
Outright suspicion and cynicism is a minority position overall - no group of scientists is actively distrusted by more than three in 10 of the public, and only 3% of the public say they're strongly suspicious of scientists in general, with a further 16% slightly suspicious.
But on certain issues, distrust is widespread. Nearly half (46%) the public believe scientists won't publish results their funders don't like, compared with only 16% who disagree. This view is most prevalent among low- (70%) and middling-trusters (61%), but is also held by a large minority (38%) of high-trusters.
4. Trust is most polarised for climate scientists
Trust among the public as a whole falls to around half (54%) for climate scientists, well below scientists in general (63%) - and they draw the most active suspicion: 30% say they're suspicious or cynical about climate scientists, including 12% - one in eight of the public overall - who strongly feel this way.
Climate scientists also show the widest gap between those with high and middling trust on whether they're "on the side of the public": 71% of high-trusters believe this, but only 21% of middling-trusters. This 50-point gap underscores that the challenge facing climate scientists is wider than niche science cynics.
Between seven and eight in 10 Green (84%) Labour (76%) and Lib Dem (72%) supporters have high trust in climate scientists, but this falls to less than half of Conservatives (46%) and just two in 10 Reform UK supporters (19%). This gap in trust between Reform and Green supporters is the largest for any type of scientist asked about in the study.
5. Trust matters to support for science and personal actions
Trust levels are also highly related to support for science and whether the public act on scientific advice. For example, of the 5% of the population who are low-trusters, a third (34%) want public science funding cut - compared with just 2% of high-trusters and 12% of those in the middle who say the same.
Agreement that governments should rely on scientific guidance when making decisions also rises steeply with trust in scientists, with a big gap in views between those with high and middling trust (71% vs 30%).
There are also huge gaps on listening to and believing advice from scientists between the three groups, which feeds through into actions:
63% of high-trusters say they believe information from scientists in general without researching it further, compared with just 18% of those in the middle and 7% of low-trusters.
At the other end of the spectrum, 42% of low-trusters say they ignore anything scientists in general have to say, 56% ignore vaccine scientists and 69% ignore climate scientists.
88% of high-trusters in vaccine scientists say they would always get a vaccine that was recommended to them by the NHS or a medical professional, compared with 55% of those in the middle and 16% of low-trusters.
69% of high-trusters in climate scientists say scientific evidence of climate change influences their behaviour, compared with just 26% of those in the middle and 6% of low-trusters.
And this polarisation is reflected in political identities: 81% of Green supporters say they are always willing to follow scientific guidance when it comes to how they live their life, compared with 32% of Reform UK supporters.
6. The UK population ranges from "Science Advocates" through to "Science Critics"
The study has developed a major new segmentation of the UK public into distinct groups, based on their level and nature of trust in scientists and their underlying values and mindsets. This reveals not only a wide range of trust levels, but also that even groups with similar levels of trust can have very different reasons for these responses - which matters for anyone trying to build trust rather than just measure it.
There are five distinct groups within the UK population, with the three middle segments having relatively high trust in scientists yet more nuanced positions towards science and distinct underlying drivers of their attitudes:
Science Advocates (17% of the population) - 94% have high trust in scientists in general.
Contented Trusters (19%) - 79% high trust.
Betrayed Trusters (18%) - 78% high trust.
Disengaged Trusters (25%) - 72% high trust.
Science Critics (21%) - 7% high trust.
Contented Trusters have high levels of trust in institutions in general and relatively high contentment with their lives. In stark contrast, Betrayed Trusters trust science despite a strong sense of being let down by other institutions - their trust in science is the exception. Disengaged Trusters are generally not actively suspicious of science, but just pay much less attention, not just to science but in general.
The entirely different mindsets of the groups are clear:
Nearly nine in 10 (86%) Science Advocates say they challenge people when they say something scientifically inaccurate, compared with just 16% of Disengaged Trusters, who are lowest on this.
Seven in 10 or more of all groups say they'd always get an NHS-recommended vaccine - except Science Critics, only 36% of whom say they would do this.
Each group presents distinct challenges to scientists and research institutions who want to increase and demonstrate their trustworthiness - there is no one-size-fits-all model. There are big differences even among the middle segments: 68% of Betrayed Trusters think scientists won't publish results their funders don't like but just 29% of Disengaged Trusters feel the same. This compares with even fewer Advocates (10%).
As well as convincing on transparency and openness, there is a broad spectrum of views across segments on the crucial sense of scientists "being on my side": 88% of Advocates believe this, compared with 63% of Contented Trusters, 58% of Betrayed Trusters, fewer than half of Disengaged Trusters (41%), and only 13% of Critics.
7. What different groups say would actually build trust
The top two actions that the public say would increase their trust is scientists actively correcting misinformation (45%) and explaining how their work improves ordinary people's lives (44%).
Actions the scientific sector often reaches for - such as scientists advising policymakers, involving the public in setting research priorities, or engaging with the local community - rank near the bottom. For example, just 9% of middling-trusters and 7% of low-trusters say scientists giving policymakers advice on research findings would help increase their trust, with this measure faring worst across the two groups overall.
The encouraging point is that very few say that nothing will increase their levels of trust: even among the Science Critics, only 17% actively say there is nothing scientists can do, although a further 24% of this group say they don't know what would make them more trusting of scientists.
Professor Bobby Duffy, Director of the Policy Institute at King's College London, said:
"Trust in scientists remains generally high in the UK, with very few active distrusters who are wholly suspicious or cynical. However, this study reveals trust in scientists isn't just about whether people think scientists know their subject - it's about whether people feel scientists are doing good for them. That sense of shared identity is a powerful driver of trust - and may present a significant risk, if growing political polarisation influences how people see science, as we've seen develop in the US over the last decade.
"For example, climate science has an incredibly strong link to identity divides, with trust in climate scientists ranging from 84% for Green supporters to just 19% for Reform UK supporters, a wider political gap than for scientists working in any other field.
"We don't want a public who treat science or scientists with blind faith: these are often complex, contested areas, and the public making informed judgements about who and what to trust is preferable to uncritical trust in scientists across the board. But we also want to avoid a society where your attitudes to science are set by a political identity, as that reduces judgement and nuance.
"Yet it would be a mistake to read this as a country simply divided into science advocates and science critics. The public splits into much more nuanced groups, and there is much we can do to demonstrate the trustworthiness of science and scientists - but this needs to be targeted and tailored for these different groups. For some, the focus should be on explaining how research actually improves people's lives; for others, it's about scientists showing up and engaging directly with the people affected by their work."
Tracey Brown OBE, Director of Sense About Science, said:
"Science has not typically been a strong facet of identity. Our experience of over two decades in public debates about science has shown public attitudes on most issues to be quite fluid and flexible. This flexibility in public attitudes is important because it means that people can respond to changing evidence. It means people can make the best use of ways to understand and shape their world. This study shows some hardening of a connection between political identities and science and scientists are right to be concerned about it.
"Fortunately, there is a lot to play for. Trust is more fragile between people and all kinds of institutions, and responses in the study point to the importance of being transparent, open about motives and clear about benefits. Having someone you trust to ask about a scientific issue correlates with higher trust in scientists. Knowing a scientist also makes it more likely you'll be in a higher trust group.
"These are things that scientists, and science mediators, should find quite easy to do. They require thoughtful communication and better care of relationships, rather than huge amounts of time and resource."
Lara Clements, Associate Director of Engagement at Wellcome, said:
"This research highlights that people are making judgments about scientists based not only on what they know, but whether they feel scientists understand their concerns, share their values and are working to benefit people like them. If science is to continue delivering benefits and earning the public's trust, we need to strengthen the connection between research and people's lives.
"In an increasingly polarised environment, trust in science cannot be taken for granted. It must be continually earned. This research gives us a richer understanding of public trust in scientists in the UK today and will help Wellcome support scientists, institutions and funders to engage more meaningfully with the people they serve."
