An international study on public trust in science conducted in 68 countries, including Spain, has found that most people trust scientists and believe that they should be more involved in society and in policy-making. In addition, a majority of survey participants believe that researchers should play a more active role in society and in political decision-making. The Spanish population's confidence in science ranks seventh out of the 68 countries analysed. The research, which surveyed 71,922 people, provides the largest global data set on trust in scientists since the covid-19 pandemic. The study is published in the journal Nature Human Behaviour and has Spanish participation, led by FECYT.

Gema Revuelta - confianza
Gema Revuelta
Director of the Master's in Scientific, Medical, and Environmental Communication, and of the Center for Studies in Science, Communication, and Society at UPF Barcelona School of Management
The main findings of this study tell us something we’ve known for decades: society continues to trust scientists. Specifically, looking at Spain, we remain among the top countries globally on this matter. However, while the overall result of this research is not groundbreaking, there are many reasons to consider it a highly relevant study, capable of sparking numerous reflections and even inspiring future policies.
First, this is the first large-scale investigation conducted since the pandemic. This is crucial, as it has often been assumed since then that society has lost trust in scientists. In this regard, this research reconfirms that scientists are still perceived as trustworthy individuals.
Of course, the other side of the findings shows that, although not the majority, there are groups of people who clearly distrust scientists, and this is a cause for concern. This is more alarming than ever, as these groups are highly visible on certain social media platforms (for example, X’s new practices favor denialist narratives). Furthermore, some individuals from these groups hold significant political and corporate decision-making power. In this sense, the study provides valuable information for considering political actions.
Second, the study offers a genuinely global perspective. Specifically, it covers 68 countries across all continents, whereas such surveys typically focus on one country or region, often underrepresenting the Global South. The global vision of this research provides valuable insights into assumptions often based on results from the United States, Europe, or other Global North countries. For instance, the findings regarding the influence of religiosity on trust perception are particularly interesting, as encompassing so many countries and cultures allows for more nuanced observations.
Third, the research examines the concept of "trust" in depth, exploring four dimensions—perceived competence, benevolence, integrity, and transparency—rather than superficially addressing it as a single dimension, as many other studies do.
Fourth, this is a pre-registered study, an open science practice that enhances transparency in research.
Finally, it is important to clarify that this is not a study about trust in science (as the press release erroneously titled it) but about trust in scientists. This distinction is not trivial, as behavioral psychology shows that the processes leading us to form attitudes and perceptions about people (in this case, scientists) are not the same as those describing how we perceive objects or concepts (like science) and have different consequences.
Ana Muñoz - confianza ciencia EN
Ana Muñoz van den Eynde
Senior Scientist in Public Research Organisations and Head of the Science, Technology and Society Research Unit at CIEMAT
I had identified this study and was waiting for it to be published, because I had heard that it had been previously deposited in a repository. I was pleased to be able to see the questions, but I miss a lot of information, although I realise that this is the consequence of publishing a study of such breadth in a journal, with the space limitations they pose.
The article is about trust in scientists, not science. The press release therefore misses the point, as they insist on talking about trust in science, which is not measured in the questionnaire used for the study. And this raises the first problem. Trust in scientists is high worldwide. So is trust in science. Especially if we refer to them as ‘people who study nature, medicine, physics, economics, history and psychology, among other things’, and refer to science as ‘our understanding of the world through observation and experimentation’, which are the definitions used in the survey. The evidence indicates that the attitude of the population depends on the type of science being discussed. At CIEMAT's Science, Technology and Society Research Unit, we differentiate between epistemic science (as a source of knowledge, which is the one referred to in the study), praxeological science (solution-oriented) and instrumental science (profit-oriented). The attitude towards the former is essentially positive, the attitude towards the latter depends on what it is applied to and how people perceive it to affect them directly, and the attitude towards the latter is rather negative, mainly because it is associated with the image that science is manipulated or at the service of specific groups, or elites.
In relation to the latter, the article stresses that there is majority support for the participation of scientists in political decision-making. This is a result that is also found in other studies. But again, it all depends on how you ask the question. In the abstract, it is easy to agree that science should contribute to policy decisions or, as asked in Spain, to agree with the phrase ‘knowledge is the best basis for making laws or regulations’. This view is compatible with, and occurs together with, the view that expresses distrust in the connection between science and politics, fundamentally because of the discrediting of politics. This is the breeding ground in which populisms are flourishing, which also manifest themselves in the form of science-related populisms. In fact, the article mentions that they have found a negative association between trust in scientists and a preference for social hierarchy and inequality. On the other hand, the press release highlights that 52% of the people who participated in the study agree that those involved in science should be involved in political decisions. This is an important figure which, as I said, shows that this is an issue that, in the abstract, is easy for the population to accept, but at the same time reflects the fact that the other half is not clear or disagrees.
So, although the article notes that their work ‘refutes the narrative that there is a crisis of confidence in science’, I do not agree that this is the case. Especially because, as I said at the beginning, they do not measure trust in science. On the other hand, because they do not provide descriptive results and measure trust (I insist, in scientists, not in science) in aggregate. By aggregating, we are actually taking the part for the whole, incorporating people with negative attitudes along with those who show positive attitudes. In this way we do not know the prevalence of the negative perspective. And this is a key data to be able to analyse the evolution (is this percentage increasing?).
In this sense, for example, some of the results offered by Eurobarometer 516, European citizens' knowledge and attitudes towards science and technology in 2021, are interesting. It measures what might be called a distrustful attitude towards science. The results indicate that, in Spain, just over 65% agree or strongly agree with the statement ‘science and technology could be used to improve the lives of everyone, but in practice they mainly improve the lives of people who are already better off’. This percentage is close to 80% for the statement ‘science and technology could be used to improve the living conditions of less developed countries, but in practice they mainly improve those of rich countries’. Finally, more than 75% agree with the statement ‘science and technology could be used to improve the environment and fight climate change, but in practice they mainly help companies to make money’. This is a different picture from the one painted in the article, in my view. And both coexist.
So, in closing, the information we get depends very much on what and how we ask. When we ask about science as a source of knowledge, we generally get a positive picture, but it is not complete. To get a better idea of what to expect, it is necessary to ask about the different types of science. On the other hand, even when we focus only on science as a source of knowledge, it is important to know also the percentage of people who do not agree even with this idea. Finally, we cannot equate trust in science with trust in those who do science, because these are also different issues.
Fabien Medvecky - Confianza EN
Fabien Medvecky
Associate Professor and Associate Director - Research, Australian National Centre for the Public Awareness of Science (CPAS), The Australian National University
The current study “Trust in scientists and their role in society across 68 countries” is probably the broadest and most robust work I’ve seen that addresses the issue of trust in science, and especially trust in scientists across the globe.
After surveying nearly 72,000 people across 68 countries, here are the things that stand out. Firstly, there is not one country that shows low levels of trust in science. But there is variation across countries. Egypt and India have, by far, the highest trust in science but the Antipodean countries also show very high levels of trust.
More interesting is that many of the stories we hear about leads to (dis)trust are challenged when we take a broader, more robust look. Religiosity (often used as an example of anti-science, especially in the US) is in fact positively correlated with trust in science on a global level. Conversely, science literacy has almost no effect on trust in science.
The study also looks at how scientists should engage with society. Most people across the globe think scientists should contribute to public debates and policymaking (~50-55% for, ~25% neutral, and ~25% against), but the strongest call by far is for more science communication with a whopping 83% of people thinking scientists should communicate to the general public about their work.
Conflict of interest: "Nothing direct, but I know and have collaborated with a number of the authors, including the main person behind the study (NGM)".
- Research article
- Peer reviewed
Cologna et al.
- Research article
- Peer reviewed