N

NAT
ATIIO
ONNA
ALL ACA
ACAD DEEM
MIIE
ESSO
OFF SSCCIIE
ENNC
CEES
S,,
E
ENNG
GIIN
NEEE
ERRIIN
NGG,, A
ANND
DM MEED
DIIC
CIIN
NEE

A
ARRIIZO
ZONNA
A STAT
STATEEU
UNNIIV
VEER
RSSIITTY
Y

V O L . X X X I V, N O . 1 , F A L L 2 0 1 7 REAL NUMBERS

Mixed Messages about Public Trust in Science

For many years, the scientific community has been wondering—and often worrying—about the extent to which the
public trusts science. Some observers have warned of a “war on science,” and recently some have expressed concern
about the rise of populist antagonism to the influence of experts.

But public confidence in the scientific community appears to be relatively strong, according to a nationally
representative survey of adults in the United States by the Pew
Pew Research
Research Center
Center in 2016. Furthermore, scientists are the
only group among the 13 institutions covered in the General
General Social
Social Survey
Survey conducted by the National Opinion Research
Center where public confidence has remained stable since the 1970s. However, this favorable attitude is somewhat tepid.
Only four in 10 people reported a great deal of confidence in the scientific community.

A series of other Pew Research Center studies, however, have revealed that public trust in scientists in matters
connected with childhood vaccines, climate change, and genetically modified (GM) foods is more varied. Overall, many
people hold skeptical views of climate scientists and GM food scientists; a larger share express trust in medical
scientists, but there, too, many express what survey analysts call a “soft” positive rather than a strongly positive view.

There are, of course, important differences in opinions about scientists in each of these domains. For example, people’s
views about climate scientists vary strongly depending on their political orientation, consistent with more than a decade
of partisan division over this issue. But public views about GM food scientists and medical scientists are not strongly
divided along political lines. Instead, views about GM food issues connect with people’s concerns about the relationship
between food and health; most people are skeptical of scientists working on GM food issues and are deeply skeptical of
information from food industry leaders on this issue. On the other hand, older adults, people who care more about
childhood vaccine issues, and those who know more about science are, generally, more trusting of medical scientists
working on childhood vaccine issues than are other people.

It is important to keep in mind that public beliefs about science and scientists aren’t necessarily indicators of trust, per
se. One example involves public support for the products of scientific and technological innovation. A Pew Research
Center survey found that about two-thirds of people see the effects of science on society as mostly positive, which is
consistent with some 35 years of data from the General Social Survey.

Looking at the components of trust in science across these three scientific areas—vaccines, climate change, and GM food
—two patterns stand out. First, public trust in scientists is stronger, by comparison, than it is for several other groups in
society. For example, many more people report trust in information from medical scientists, climate scientists, and GM
food scientists than information from industry leaders, the news media, and elected officials. On the other hand, no
more than about half of people hold strongly trusting views of scientists in any of these domains. For example, only 47%
of people say that medical scientists understand the health effects of the measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine
“very well.” Some 43% hold soft positive views of medical understanding about the MMR vaccine, saying medical
scientists understand this issue “fairly well.”

The scientific enterprise is complex and so, too, is public opinion about science. The notion of trust itself has multiple
dimensions. Public trust in scientists encompasses expectations about scientists’ actions, trust in scientists to be honest
brokers of information, trust in scientific expertise and understanding, and trust in the motivations and influences
operating on science research. Viewed through that lens, levels of public trust in science are quite varied, particularly
across scientific domains.

P U B L I C C O N F I D E N C E I N S C I E N T I S T S T E N D S T O B E H I G H C O M PA R E D W I T H O T H E R G R O U P S

Public confidence in scientists is relatively strong compared with trust in other institutional groups. Only the military
earns more confidence from the public. Still, people seem guarded. No more than a third of people report a “great deal”
of confidence in any of these groups to act in the public interest. Overall, more people express positive than negative
confidence in scientists, but a 55% majority express only a soft confidence in scientists to act in the public interest.

S C I E N T I S T S A R E S E E N A S T R U S T W O R T H Y C O M M U N I C AT O R S O F S C I E N C E - R E L E VA N T
I N F O R M AT I O N C O M PA R E D W I T H O T H E R G R O U P S

Public trust in scientists as sources of information is generally higher than it is for any of several other groups in society.
For example, far more people trust medical scientists to provide full and accurate information about the health effects of
childhood vaccines than they trust information from pharmaceutical industry leaders, the news media, or elected
officials. The same pattern occurs for public trust in information from climate scientists and from GM food scientists.

But only a minority of people (39%) report “strong” trust in information from climate scientists. An equal share of adults
say they have “some” trust in information from climate scientists, and about 22% are more skeptical, saying they do not
trust information from climate scientists at all or not too much. The same pattern occurs for trust in information from
GM food scientists.

Medical scientists are the most trusted of the three groups. Yet here, too, some 35% of adults have only soft trust in
medical scientists to give full and accurate information about the effects of the MMR vaccine.

These findings suggest that the authority of scientists to speak on matters directly relevant to their expertise is often
met with some skepticism.
T H E R E I S L I M I T E D P U B L I C T R U S T I N T H E K N O W L E D G E A N D U N D E R S TA N D I N G O F S C I E N T I S T S
I N A R E A S D I R E C T LY R E L E VA N T T O T H E I R E X P E R T I S E

Minorities of people express strong trust in scientists’ understanding of the causes of climate change (28%) or the health
effects of eating GM foods (19%), saying that scientists understand these matters “very well.” About half of people (47%)
say the same about medical scientists’ understanding of the health effects of the MMR vaccine.

At least four in 10 people say that scientists understand each of these matters “fairly well.” A sizable share of people are
skeptical of climate scientists’ and GM food scientists’ understanding about the causes of climate change and the health
effects of GM foods, respectively, saying that scientists understand these matters “not too well” or “not at all well.”

Perceptions of scientific consensus align closely with people’s views of scientific understanding. From the public’s
perspective, there is considerable scientific disagreement about all three of these issues, particularly GM foods.

H A L F O R F E W E R O F P E O P L E S E E T H E B E S T AVA I L A B L E S C I E N T I F I C E V I D E N C E A S R O U T I N E LY
INFLUENCING SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH IN THESE DOMAINS

People hold mixed assessments about the influences operating on science research. About half of people (52%) say that
the best available scientific evidence influences medical research on childhood vaccines “most of the time,” while some
36% say this occurs “some of the time” and another 9% say this seldom or never happens. There is even less public trust
in research connected with climate change and GM foods; roughly three in 10 people say the best available scientific
evidence influences climate research or GM food research “most of the time.”

Cary Funk is director of science and society research at the Pew Research Center.

CITE THIS ARTICLE

Funk, Cary. “Mixed Messages about Public Trust in Science.” Issues in Science and Technology 34, no. 1 (Fall 2017).

NEWSLETTER SIGN-UP
Sign-up for the Issues newsletter and be the first to get access to new articles.

IN FOCUS

COVID-19
 The essays here deliver fresh insights on the social, political, and scientific aspects of the pandemic, which can help you more
fully understand and respond to the complex and difficult events that are now unfolding.

© 2 0 2 2 A R I Z O N A S T A T E U N I V E R S I T Y. A L L R I G H T S R E S E R V E D .

PO BOX 877705, TEMPE, AZ 85287

DISCLAIMER